gograph_boundaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'Read-only; no side effects.' More importantly, it discloses path traversal constraints: 'explicit paths must remain inside the analyzed project, and every path component plus the final regular file is read through the rooted repository boundary,' providing context not in annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by details, usage guidance, and return value. While slightly verbose, each section (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) is structured for quick scanning. Minor redundancy with annotations ('Read-only; no side effects') prevents a perfect score.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, safety constraints, and returns ('Structured pass state and boundary violations'). It does not describe error behavior if the config is missing, but it mitigates this by pointing to gograph_boundaries_create for setup.

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 a single optional config parameter. The description adds value by reiterating the default ('.gograph/boundaries.json') and introducing a non-obvious constraint: explicit paths must remain inside the analyzed project, which is more precise than the schema's basic description.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'check package imports against a boundaries.json configuration.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for unconstrained dependency exploration (gograph_deps, gograph_coupling) and referencing gograph_boundaries_create for creation.

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?

WHEN TO USE section explicitly prescribes 'In CI gates or post-edit reviews to enforce layer separation.' NOT TO USE section provides a clear exclusion and names alternative tools, giving the agent explicit decision criteria for selection.

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