gograph_endpoint

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: a content-digest freshness check, incremental AST refresh, and a repository-wide CHA/SSA retry path after source changes, plus the caveat that dynamically computed prefixes remain unresolved. These are meaningful operational traits that annotations (readOnly/idempotent) do not convey. However, the freshness/retry paragraph is dense, partially opaque, and never says whether the call can be slow or how it behaves when analysis is refused, so the disclosure is informative but uneven.

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?

Front-loaded correctly: capability first, then prefix-resolution behavior, then WHEN/NOT TO USE, then RETURNS, then parameter notes. Information density is high, though the freshness/CHA-SSA sentence is a long embedded clause that a reader may need twice. Slight trimming would improve it without losing content.

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 seven-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (array of slices with route/handler/chain/SQL/env fields, plus the found:false suggestion), coverage of query forms and depth semantics, and the freshness/fallback behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, and the description mostly restates them (query forms, depth default 5). It does add one genuinely useful nuance not spelled out in the schema — that unresolved dynamic prefixes can still be reached via suffix or handler — but it never mentions root, mermaid, include_tests, intention, or session_id, leaving that to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and scope: 'Build a full vertical slice for one HTTP route', then enumerates the exact components of the slice (handler symbol, BFS call chain, SQL queries, env vars). It is immediately distinguishable from gograph_routes (list all routes) and gograph_source (raw handler code), which are named explicitly.

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?

Contains explicit WHEN TO USE ('auditing what an API endpoint does end-to-end') and NOT TO USE clauses that route the agent to two named siblings, gograph_routes for discovery and gograph_source for raw code. There is also a sequencing hint ('use gograph_routes first to find the pattern').

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