gograph_focus

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the server checks freshness and may retry CHA/SSA after source changes, and explicitly states 'read-only; no side effects'.

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 structured with sections and front-loaded key info, but is slightly verbose with multiple paragraphs. However, every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4.

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?

With one required param, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns (files, symbols, edges, imports) and edge cases (empty when not found), making it complete for its complexity.

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% for one parameter 'package'. The description adds a concrete example ('internal/auth') and clarifies it can be a path or name, adding slight value beyond the schema 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 explicitly states 'Extract a comprehensive structural summary of one Go package' with specific deliverables: files, symbols, call edges, imports. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with single-symbol tools (gograph_context, gograph_source) and global search (gograph_query).

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, giving clear context for orientation before editing and exclusions for symbol-level or global queries, with named alternatives.

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