gograph_embeds

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it is '100% local, read-only static analysis tool,' has 'no side effects,' 'requires no authorization or credentials,' 'no rate limits,' and 'performs zero destructive modifications.' This complements annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.) without contradiction.

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?

Description is concise yet well-structured with labeled sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS). Every sentence adds meaningful information, and key points are 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description mentions the return type: 'detailed array of embedding parent structs and their file definitions.' Combined with purpose, usage, and parameter details, the description is self-sufficient and complete for this simple tool.

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 the only parameter 'struct' with description (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Requires 'struct' parameter' and providing an example ('e.g., 'Symbol''), improving usability beyond schema alone.

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 the tool's action: 'Identify and list all parent structures that compositionally embed the specified target struct.' It uses a specific verb (identify/list) and resource (parent structures embedding target struct), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gograph_implementers.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (analyzing struct nesting, identifying compositions, tracing shared types) and when not to use (if looking for interfaces implemented, use gograph_implementers instead). Provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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