gograph_focus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: requires a pre-existing file (.gograph/graph.json), returns empty when package not found, and restates no side effects. This is valuable but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 concise and structured with clear sections: what it does, prerequisite, side effect note, WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, and RETURNS. Every sentence serves a purpose and is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (single parameter, rich annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains inputs, outputs, preconditions, and exclusions. No gaps remain.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is clear and provides an example. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a comprehensive structural summary of one Go package, specifying what it includes (files, symbols, call edges, imports). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by providing WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections referencing gograph_context, gograph_source, and 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: when to use (orienting to unfamiliar package), when not to use (for single symbol details or global searches), and alternatives (gograph_context, gograph_source, gograph_query). It also notes the prerequisite of running `gograph build .` first.

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