gograph_boundaries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: requires .gograph/graph.json and a boundaries config file, returns error if missing, and describes return format. No contradictions.

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?

Description is three paragraphs but well-structured with sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). Front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value; slightly verbose but clear.

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?

Covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, return structure, and error conditions. Annotations cover safety. No output schema, but description explains return JSON format. Complete for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 one optional parameter 'config' described. Description adds context: 'defaults to .gograph/boundaries.json' and notes error if missing, which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Check whether actual package imports violate architecture constraints defined in a boundaries.json config file.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_deps and gograph_coupling by noting they are for general exploration without constraints.

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 and NOT TO USE sections: 'In CI gates or post-edit reviews to enforce layer separation rules' and 'NOT TO USE: For general dependency exploration without a constraint file (use gograph_deps or gograph_coupling instead).' Clearly states context and alternatives.

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