gograph_embeds

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds context about freshness checks, analysis mode refreshes, and retry behavior for precise graphs. It also reiterates 'Read-only; no side effects.' No contradiction found.

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: a concise purpose statement, followed by technical behavior, usage guidance, return format. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description lists return format (embedding parent struct names with package paths and file locations) and edge case (empty when nowhere embedded). The freshness mechanism is also explained. All necessary context for tool invocation is present.

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?

The single parameter 'struct' has a schema description with examples (e.g., 'Symbol', 'PackageNode'), and the overall description reinforces what the parameter represents. Schema coverage is 100%, so the descriptive addition is helpful but not essential.

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 immediately states the action: 'Find all Go structs that embed the named struct via anonymous field composition.' It clearly identifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_implementers and gograph_usages.

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?

It includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, specifying concrete scenarios (e.g., understanding base type extension, estimating blast radius) and alternatives for interface implementations and named field references.

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