gograph_errors

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

The description supplements annotations by detailing that the tool is 100% local, read-only, has no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, and performs zero destructive modifications. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.) and provides concrete behavioral context.

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 concise with four well-structured sentences covering purpose, behavior, usage, and output. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return is a structured checklist with file and line coordinates, which is sufficient for the agent to understand the output. The context signals indicate low complexity, so completeness is high.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a well-described optional 'term' parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool locates explicit error creation points (errors.New, fmt.Errorf, sentinel definitions) in the codebase. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gograph_errorflow, which traces propagation paths, ensuring no ambiguity.

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?

Explicit usage guidelines are provided: use when auditing error taxonomies, cataloging error codes, or standardizing error handling; do not use for propagation tracing (use gograph_errorflow instead). This gives clear when-to and when-not-to instructions.

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