gograph_globals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool. No side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, no rate limits, zero destructive modifications.' No contradictions.

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 separate sections for purpose, behavior/safety, usage, and completeness. It is front-loaded with the main action. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value. A slightly more concise phrasing could achieve a 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns a structured checklist of all global variables, constants, package paths, and types.' This provides a reasonable idea of the output, though the structure is vague. Given the simple nature (one parameter, full annotations), it is fairly complete. A score of 5 would require more detail on the return format.

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 a clear description for the only parameter 'package'. The description's mention of 'package paths' in the completeness section adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 audits global variable declarations, shared package states, and constants. The verb 'audit' and specific resource 'global variables' are precise, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like gograph_local (not listed but implied).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to discover mutable global state, check config values, or identify thread-safety hazards.' Also provides an exclusion: 'Do NOT use for local scope variables.' This gives clear guidance and implies alternatives.

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