gograph_coupling

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

Discloses read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior consistent with annotations, plus adds context about freshness checks and retry logic in precise modes. 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?

Well-structured with logical flow from purpose to details, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, making it acceptable.

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?

Covers return format, empty result behavior, and all parameters. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains what the tool returns.

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 meaningful parameter descriptions. The description adds extra context on default behaviors and rationale (e.g., 'users asking... rarely care about stdlib coupling').

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 reports fan-in (Ca), fan-out (Ce), and instability ratio per package, and distinguishes from siblings like gograph_complexity and gograph_dependents in the usage section.

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 list specific scenarios and alternative tools, providing clear guidance for selection.

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