gograph_fixtures

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

The description discloses read-only nature, freshness checking, and refresh behavior in different analysis modes. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about graph mode specifics and retry behavior, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 (action, behavior, usage guidance, return value) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value and earns its place.

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 single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, usage boundaries, and return type comprehensively. It fully informs the agent about what the tool does and when to use it.

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, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter is used to find test infrastructure in the named package, specifically targeting test files, which goes beyond the schema description of 'package path or name'.

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 finds test helper structs and factory/builder functions in *_test.go files for a named package. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_tests and filesystem search, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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, guiding the agent to use it before writing tests to avoid duplication, and not for test functions or external test data files. This provides clear context for when to select this tool over alternatives.

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