gograph_concurrency

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing freshness/refresh behavior (server checks freshness, retries CHA/SSA in precise modes), defining what is not indexed (channel receives/select), and confirming read-only semantics. This is valuable context not available in 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 labeled sections and every sentence contributes meaning. It is slightly verbose in the freshness mechanics, but still appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 explains return values (file locations, line numbers, primitive kind) and empty behavior. It also covers exclusions and refresh behavior, making it highly complete for a tool with only one optional parameter.

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% for the sole 'term' parameter, and the description repeats the same examples given in the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline for adequate coverage.

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 identifies 'indexed concurrency sites' and enumerates specific resource types (goroutine spawns, channel sends, sync calls). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting sequential flow analysis should use gograph_callers/gograph_callees.

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 provide clear conditions (e.g., auditing race safety, async flow, synchronization points) and direct the agent to alternatives for sequential analysis. This is ideal guidance.

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