gograph_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so description adds value by detailing no side effects, refresh semantics with git_ref, and working tree comparison without git_ref. Almost all behavior is covered.

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?

Well-structured, front-loaded key information, uses bullet points and explicit sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (grouped by added/modified/deleted, empty arrays when no changes). References sibling tools for alternatives. Parameter and usage guidance are complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Single parameter git_ref is fully described in schema (100% coverage). The description adds clear behavioral context: without it compares working tree, with it refreshes source analysis and diffs against the reference. This exceeds schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists structural changes to Go symbols, distinguishes behavior with and without git_ref, and contrasts with sibling tools like gograph_impact and gograph_review, providing specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provide clear context: use after editing to confirm changes before impact/review, not for line diffs (use git diff) or blast radius (use gograph_impact).

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