gograph_httpcalls

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: freshness checking, retry behavior in precise modes, and explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects'. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful context.

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 sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) and is front-loaded with the main functionality. It is slightly verbose in the freshness detail but each sentence earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and return value description. It adequately prepares the agent to select and invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'term' parameter. The description in the tool text adds value by providing concrete examples ('e.g., 'POST' or 'api.example.com''), which goes beyond the schema description.

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's purpose: 'Find all outbound HTTP client calls detected in the codebase via net/http package-level functions'. It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes from sibling tool gograph_routes (HTTP server routes).

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?

WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections explicitly provide usage context. It suggests using the tool for auditing external API dependencies and identifying outbound HTTP traffic, and explicitly says not to use it for HTTP server route definitions (use gograph_routes).

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