gograph_check

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

Description states read-only, no side effects, and requires .gograph/graph.json. Returns structured JSON with details. Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description adds prerequisite and return format.

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?

Concise and well-structured: tool action, list of checks, prerequisites, behavioral traits, usage guidance, return format. Every sentence adds information 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return structure and prerequisites. Covers all necessary aspects for correct usage, including when to use and not use.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds value by linking 'since' to api_drift baseline and 'config' to checks.json file, providing context beyond schema.

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 runs static policy checks against the repository graph, listing specific types of checks (boundaries, api_drift, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual checks.

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: during PR review or pre-commit, not for CI/CD enforcement (use CLI gograph gate instead). Provides clear context and alternatives.

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