gograph_deps

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

The description dedicates a BEHAVIOR & SAFETY section that adds valuable context beyond annotations: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool, no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, zero destructive modifications.' This aligns with and enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.) with concrete specifics.

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 into labeled sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and is concise yet comprehensive. Every sentence provides necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, parameter requirement, and return nature. The example further aids understanding.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by providing an example ('internal/search') and clarifying the return type ('structured package list showing direct or full transitive dependency chains'), which goes beyond the schema's property descriptions. However, it does not explain the `transitive` parameter in detail, leaving the schema's description to suffice.

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 'Render the package import dependency tree for a target Go package', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool `gograph_usages` by explicitly saying to use that for symbol tracing instead.

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 description provides explicit usage scenarios ('mapping package interactions, auditing layer separation, analyzing transitive import paths') and a clear when-not-to-use instruction with an alternative tool named (`gograph_usages`). This guides selection perfectly.

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