gograph_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds context: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool, no side effects, no authorization/credentials, no rate limits.' This elaborates beyond annotations without contradicting.

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 (main purpose, BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and front-loaded with the primary action. It is fairly concise, though some information (e.g., safety) is redundant with annotations.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, parameter, and return values ('field names, Go types, and exact struct tag string metadata'). It is fully self-contained.

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% with a clear description for the 'struct' parameter. The description mentions 'Requires struct parameter' and adds an example ('Graph'), but this is marginal extra value over the schema.

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 extracts fields, types, and struct tags from a Go struct, specifying the verb 'Extract' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning alternative tools for methods (gograph_node, gograph_source).

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 USAGE GUIDELINES section explicitly lists when to use the tool (inspecting struct definitions, verifying layouts, mapping tags) and when not to (looking for methods), with clear alternatives provided.

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