gograph_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as '100% local', 'requires no authorization or credentials', 'has no rate limits', and 'zero destructive modifications'. No 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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and front-loads the main purpose. It is moderately sized and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavior, parameter details, and an example. It is fully complete given the tool's complexity and the rich annotations.

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?

With 100% schema coverage for the single 'symbol' parameter, the description adds meaning by stating that the parameter is required and providing an example value ('BuildGraph'), which aids understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 generates 'high-fidelity explanations, downstream impacts, and documentation summaries for codebase symbols', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (gograph_source) that does line-by-line raw source code.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (constructing technical documentation, onboarding, summarizing logic for PRs) and when-not-to-use (for line-by-line raw source, pointing to gograph_source as an alternative).

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