gograph_godobj

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds 'Read-only; no side effects' and details on freshness checks and graph retries, which enriches the behavioral context without contradiction.

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: main purpose, behavioral notes, thresholds, usage guidelines, return info. Every sentence adds value and is efficiently 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 tool complexity and no output schema, description fully covers purpose, threshold semantics, usage guidance, and return values. 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%, but description adds meaning by explaining default thresholds, that exceeding any enabled threshold qualifies, and ranking by combined excess. This goes beyond what schema provides.

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 states it detects God Object anti-pattern candidates using method, field, and call counts. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying what it doesn't do and naming alternatives like gograph_fields and gograph_complexity.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE (architecture reviews) and NOT TO USE sections with alternative tools (gograph_fields, gograph_complexity) provide excellent guidance.

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