gograph_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: 'Read-only apart from temporary baseline extraction,' clarifying a minor non-destructive side effect. No contradictions found.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear action statement, a note on git baselines, a read-only clarification, explicit WHEN/NOT TO USE sections, and a RETURNS summary. Every sentence adds value, and key info is front-loaded.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates adequately by describing the output structure (pass/warn/fail status, findings, summary counts). It covers purpose, scope, and behavior. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if config file is missing or how temporary baselines are cleaned up.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds slight context, e.g., 'Git ref for api_drift baseline' for 'since' and default path for 'config,' but these mostly repeat or slightly extend the schema descriptions. No significant added value beyond the 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?

The description specifies the tool's purpose: performing static policy checks including boundaries, API drift, and more. It clearly identifies the actions and resources involved. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gograph_boundaries or gograph_api, which are specific checks that this tool might subsume.

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 ('During PR review or pre-commit analysis') and when-not-to-use ('For CI process exit enforcement') guidance, and even suggests an alternative (CLI gograph gate). This is exemplary.

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