gograph_diagram

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds critical context: requires .gograph/graph.json file, no side effects, and mentions readability issues with >30 nodes. No contradictions.

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?

Concise with clear sections, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with main purpose, then usage guidelines, return type, and caution note. Every sentence adds value.

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 all aspects: prerequisites, usage scenarios, parameter guidance, return value, performance note. No output schema, but return type specified clearly. Complete for the tool's 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 basic descriptions. Description adds practical usage guidance for group_by (monorepos vs deep drill-down) and max_depth (limit to 2 for readability), improving parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states it generates a Mermaid architecture diagram of the repository package dependency graph, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning alternatives like gograph_callers and gograph_focus.

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?

Includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, providing concrete scenarios (onboarding, architecture review) and specific alternatives (gograph_callers, gograph_impact, gograph_focus, gograph_deps).

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