gograph_arity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The BEHAVIOR & SAFETY section details the tool as 100% local, read-only, with no side effects, no auth, no rate limits. This fully aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adds extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (BEHAVIOR, USAGE, COMPLETENESS), uses concise sentences, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence is valuable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, param details, and return type. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter 'min' described. The description adds the default value of 5 and calls it 'threshold', which provides extra context, though there's a slight naming inconsistency between 'min' and 'threshold'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool identifies functions or methods exceeding a parameter count, using specific verbs and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling gograph_fields by noting not to use for struct fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides when to use (audit design parameters, identify refactoring candidates) and when not to use (struct fields, direct to gograph_fields). It also mentions the default threshold.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.