gograph_callers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: it explains that the MCP server refreshes source analysis before the call, describes how Interface.Method expands through all recorded implementations but reports a shared source call site once, and notes the 'precise graph' conditioning. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with a concise opening summary, labeled WHEN TO USE / NOT TO USE sections, and a RETURNS section. Every sentence provides distinct value—no filler or repetition of schema fields. The use of labeled sections makes the information easily scannable for an agent, and the length is proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of the tool (depth handling, interface dispatch, alternative tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description compensates fully: the RETURNS section specifies caller symbols with package paths, file locations, call-site line numbers, and Mermaid text option. It also covers the freshness behavior and excludes unbounded blast radius. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for key parameters: it explains depth semantics ('Defaults to one-hop fan-in; depth 2-10 expands callers-of-callers'), elaborates on the 'function' parameter's interface notation behavior, and clarifies the mermaid=true return type. It does not discuss no_tests or exact, but the schema already describes those adequately.

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 that call the specified function or interface method.' It clearly identifies the tool as a fan-in caller analysis and distinguishes it from related tools by noting one-hop default vs. depth expansion and interface method expansion through implementations. The explicit mentions of gograph_impact and gograph_callees as alternatives reinforce the unique purpose.

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 provides explicit WHEN TO USE section ('Before renaming, removing, or changing a function or interface method signature') and NOT TO USE section with named alternatives ('use gograph_impact' for upstream blast radius, 'use gograph_callees' for downstream callees). This gives the agent clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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