gograph_changes

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

Description states it is '100% local, read-only static analysis tool' with no side effects, no auth needed, no rate limits, and zero destructive modifications. This reinforces and adds context beyond annotations (e.g., local execution) without contradiction.

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 concise with clear sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS). Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, description adequately states returns include 'changed symbol names, kinds, and paths'. Covers behavior, usage, parameter requirements, and return information. No gaps.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'git_ref'. Description adds value by providing usage example ('since: HEAD~1') and explaining the parameter's role as a git reference, which goes beyond the schema's 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?

Description clearly states it analyzes structural changes in Go files compared to a git commit reference. Verb 'Analyze' and resource 'structural changes in Go files' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on changes, not line diffs.

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?

Explicitly recommends use during code reviews, pull request verification, or post-edit sessions. Clearly advises against use for line diffs, directing to standard git diff. Provides alternative tool.

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