gograph_constructors

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds no contradiction. It discloses the prerequisite of .gograph/graph.json and the side-effect-free nature. This adds valuable context beyond 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?

Description is well-organized with sections, front-loaded purpose, and no superfluous content. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return structure (function names, signatures, paths, locations) and handles the empty case. It also covers prerequisites and scope.

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 a clear parameter description. The description adds the 'exact name' qualifier and examples ('User', 'Config'), enhancing clarity 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?

Description clearly states it finds factory and constructor functions that instantiate a named Go struct, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gograph_literals and gograph_fields.

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?

Explicitly provides WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections, naming alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., gograph_literals for composite literals, gograph_fields for fields).

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