gograph_flow

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds: MCP server refreshes source analysis before call, and the tool has no side effects. It explains what the analysis does and doesn't do (path-insensitive). Adds value beyond annotations without 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded with purpose. It is informative but slightly verbose in the limitations part. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Could be tightened but still concise enough.

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?

Tool has 5 optional params, no output schema. Description compensates by stating returns include source, sink, severity, confidence, path steps. Provides context about analysis being path-insensitive and depth limit. Covers usage, limitations, and returns adequately.

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 each parameter having a description. The description adds marginal context: mentions configuring sanitizer policy via .gograph/flow.json for the config parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states it finds potential untrusted-data paths from specific sources (HTTP requests, JSON, env vars) to specific sinks (SQL queries, process execution, etc.). It uses a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are numerous but mostly unrelated to data-flow analysis. Slight deduction for lack of sibling differentiation.

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?

Includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, providing clear context and exclusions. It specifies appropriate scenarios (security review) and warns against misuse (as proof of exploitability). Also notes limitations (path-insensitive, 16-call depth). Perfect guidance.

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