gograph_explain

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

The description states 'Read-only; no side effects,' which aligns perfectly with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It also discloses caching and freshness behavior, explaining that the server checks freshness and retries CHA/SSA after source changes, adding significant context beyond the annotations.

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 clear sections and front-loads the purpose. It is slightly verbose in listing all included aspects, but each sentence adds value and does not waste space.

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 lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return value: rich structured JSON with role, narrative, cross-references, and a not-found indicator. Given the tool's complexity and number of siblings, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (symbol) exists with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds value by enumerating the supported formats (short name, dot-notation, fully-qualified ID), which is useful but not required. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 due to this extra context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and specifies the exact resource: a synthesized, LLM-ready narrative for a Go symbol with a detailed list of included aspects (role classification, callers, callees, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like gograph_source and gograph_impact by contrasting use cases.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, providing clear context for when the tool is appropriate (onboarding, PR docs, architectural assessment) and when alternatives like gograph_source or gograph_impact should be used instead.

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