gograph_godobj

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

Description adds significant context beyond annotations: local, read-only, no side effects, no authorization needed, no rate limits. Annotations already provided readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description reinforces and expands.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, behavior/safety, usage guidelines, completeness. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and output (concrete structs exceeding limits). No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. Description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'structural sizes, method counts, and references' which aligns with parameters but doesn't enrich them. 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?

Clearly states the tool detects God Object code smells using structural sizes, method counts, and references. Distinguishes from sibling gograph_fields by specifying not to use for general struct layout checks.

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 says when to use (auditing architectural modularity, identifying monolithic structs) and when not to use (general struct layout checks), with a direct alternative sibling named.

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