gograph_concurrency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as being 100% local, requiring no authorization, having no rate limits, and being read-only. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear section headers (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS). It is concise, each sentence adds value, and the main purpose is stated upfront with no 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format adequately. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty results) but is otherwise complete for a single-parameter readonly tool with annotations.

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?

The single optional parameter 'term' is fully described in the schema with coverage at 100%. The description reinforces it with examples (goroutine, mutex, channel) and adds return format information (file locations, line coordinates, types) that is not in the schema, compensating for the lack of an output 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 clearly states the tool scans the codebase for concurrency declarations like go channels, select statements, sync primitives, and goroutines. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., gograph_deps, gograph_api) by focusing on concurrency-specific constructs.

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 USAGE GUIDELINES section explicitly states when to use the tool (trace async routines, verify race safety, audit sync primitives) and when NOT to use it (linear execution flows), providing clear context and exclusion criteria.

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