gograph_constructors

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

Description adds detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: local, read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, zero destructive modifications. Complements annotations perfectly.

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?

Structure is well-organized with labeled sections. Each sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (list of symbols, locations, signatures). Completeness is high given low complexity.

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 description for 'struct'. Description only adds an example 'Graph' but no significant new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'find' and resource 'constructor functions' for a specified Go struct. It distinguishes from sibling gograph_fields by explicitly saying not to use it for struct 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 states when to use (auditing initialization patterns, looking for builders, verifying instantiation) and when not to use (if fields needed, use gograph_fields). Provides clear alternatives.

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