gograph_check

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive/no-open-world), the description discloses substantial behavior: config path confinement rules, how a `.json` baseline is validated vs. treated as a Git ref, what uncommitted mode compares against, and specific refusal conditions (incomplete comparisons, deleted declarations, missing/ambiguous graph identities). This is rich operational context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded purpose with clearly labeled WHEN/NOT/RETURNS sections that aid scanning. It is dense (config path semantics and baseline validation are stated at near-schema level of detail and partially restated), but every section is purposeful and no sentence is pure filler.

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, the description supplies a RETURNS summary (pass/warn/fail status, findings, summary counts) and covers the tricky edge cases (incomplete comparisons, historical caller evidence, identity ambiguity) an agent must anticipate. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the marker/linked-component validation for `.json` baselines, that the serialized root is ignored, and that otherwise the value is extracted as a Git ref. That goes beyond the schema's terse parameter text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('run static policy checks') and enumerates the exact check families covered (boundaries, API drift, route/export tests, coverage, orphans, globals, arity, complexity). An agent can tell this is a composite policy-check tool that bundles what the sibling single-topic tools (gograph_boundaries, gograph_coverage, etc.) expose individually.

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: During PR review or pre-commit analysis' and 'NOT TO USE: For CI process exit enforcement (use CLI gograph gate)', giving both the trigger context and the named alternative. Nothing about when to select this over siblings is left to inference.

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