gograph_diagram

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects' and adds behavioral context: refreshing source analysis, returning Mermaid text, and advising max_depth/grouping for large graphs. This goes beyond the 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 well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise while packing substantial information.

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 annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, the description provides complete operational context: output format (Mermaid text), typical use cases, exclusions, and scale guidance. Since no output schema exists, stating the return type is critical and handled.

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 covers all three parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance for group_by values and max_depth for large graphs, enhancing meaning beyond schema. include_stdlib is not mentioned but the schema description is sufficient.

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 package dependency graph, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding call-graph traversal and single-package 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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections, plus parameter-specific guidance for monorepos (group_by=module) and drill-downs (group_by=file). This gives clear direction on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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