gograph_deps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only; no side effects' is redundant. However, it adds valuable context: the MCP server refreshes source analysis before the call, and it documents the 'found:false' return condition. This goes 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?

The description is moderately long but highly structured: purpose, behavior, when to use, when not to use, and return format. Every sentence carries information. The capitalized labels (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) improve scannability. A slight trim could be made, but it remains efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description fully explains behavior, settings, return values, and edge cases ('found:false'). It also addresses the refreshing behavior, making it self-contained. Sibling differentiation is present. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the default for transitive (false) and clarifies the return structure (direct[] vs transitive[]), which is not explicitly in the schema. This strengthens parameter understanding without being repetitive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the import dependencies of a named package.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming gograph_dependents as the reverse lookup tool. The transitive flag and its effect on scope are also mentioned.

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 are provided. 'When auditing package layering' gives a concrete use case, and the exclusion of gograph_dependents for reverse lookup prevents misuse. This is exactly the kind of guidance needed.

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