gograph_boundaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description nevertheless adds real context: the config path is confined to the analyzed project, every path component and the final regular file are resolved through the rooted repository boundary, and a missing config should be created via gograph_boundaries_create. It also discloses the return shape ('structured pass state and boundary violations'). It stops short of explaining what 'refresh source analysis' does to the index or whether pagination via limit/cursor matters for violation enumeration.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE / RETURNS blocks. Nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information; the boundary-resolution sentence is the densest and slightly over-explains a constraint the schema also encodes, keeping it from a 5.

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 six-parameter, all-optional analytic call with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing decision layer: purpose, trigger context, alternatives, and a one-line return summary. Only minor gaps remain (what the refresh step costs, how violations relate to pagination), which are unlikely to cause a misinvocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and each of the six parameters is already documented in depth (root must be this server's repo or a worktree, limit 1-200 with byte budget, config default, cursor semantics, session/intention selectors). The description only reinforces the config parameter's default and boundary constraints, which the schema already states ('in-project', 'regular, non-linked'). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Refresh source analysis and check package imports against a boundaries.json configuration.' It also names the sibling that creates the config (gograph_boundaries_create) and the siblings for unconstrained exploration (gograph_deps, gograph_coupling), so the agent can place it among ~70 tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE ('CI gates or post-edit reviews to enforce layer separation') and NOT TO USE with named alternatives ('unconstrained dependency exploration, use gograph_deps or gograph_coupling'). Both the positive trigger and the exclusion are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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