gograph_hotspot

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context about freshness checking, mode-specific retry of CHA/SSA, and the rationale for excluding test files. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 clear sections (main purpose, behavior, parameters, WHEN/NOT TO USE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value without fluff, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 having no output schema, the RETURNS section specifies what the agent should expect: 'Ranked list of function names with fan-in count and package location.' Combined with behavior, params, and usage guidance, the description is fully self-contained for correct invocation.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds meaningful semantics: 'top' default and 0 meaning, and include_tests explains why test helpers are excluded by default ('otherwise test helpers ... tend to dominate rankings'). This enriches the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank functions by incoming call count (fan-in)' which precisely identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from siblings by noting alternatives in the NOT TO USE section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections, naming specific alternative tools: gograph_focus, gograph_coupling, gograph_complexity. This clearly guides the agent on when to select this tool versus alternatives.

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