gograph_globals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: requires a pre-built graph file, has no side effects, and outlines return content. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: purpose, prerequisite, usage guidance, and return expectations. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects, return value, and prerequisites. The context signals (low complexity, high schema coverage) indicate no gaps.

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 the single parameter 'package', with a description already in the schema. The tool description reinforces the meaning by providing an example ('internal/config'), adding slight value beyond 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 it finds package-level variable declarations and mutating functions, specifying the exact verb ('find') and resource ('package-level variables'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_envs, which handle environment variables.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (auditing mutable global state, thread-safety, concurrency refactor) and when-not-to-use (local variables, environment variables) scenarios, including a named alternative (gograph_envs). Also mentions prerequisite of running 'gograph build .'.

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