gograph_callees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these by noting the MCP server refreshes source analysis before the call and that the operation is read-only with no persistent side effects. It also explains depth-default and traversal expansion behavior, which is useful operational 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 compact and logically organized with clear sections: action, default behavior, side-effect note, WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, and RETURNS. No sentence is wasted; all content is directly actionable for an AI agent.

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 graph-traversal tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual needs: purpose, default depth behavior, side-effect profile, source-refresh behavior, return value composition (package paths, file locations, line numbers), and alternative tools. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that depth defaults to one-hop fan-out and that depth 2-10 expands the downstream call graph, and by describing the mermaid=true return format. This enriches the schema's parameter descriptions with contextual semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find functions and methods called by the specified function.' It clearly identifies the traversal direction (fan-out to callees) and explicitly distinguishes itself from gograph_callers and gograph_deps in the usage guidance, making sibling differentiation strong.

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 contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, naming alternative tools (gograph_callers for upstream callers, gograph_deps for package dependency trees). This gives the agent unambiguous criteria for selecting this tool over closely related siblings.

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