gograph_identity

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

Annotations already carry read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description still adds meaningful context: the MCP server refreshes the graph first, canonical IDs survive line shifts but change on significant refactors, ambiguous names return all candidates instead of silently picking one. The 'read-only; no side effects' line matches annotations and adds no conflict.

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 front-loaded with purpose before complexity, and uses clear structural markers (all caps WHEN TO USE, RETURNS). It is dense, though perhaps slightly longer than minimal, with the canonical-ID mechanism explanation adding context that directly affects downstream usage rather than being filler.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return envelope (gograph.identity.v1 JSON), the status cases (exact, ambiguous, not_found), deterministic behavior, and how the optional parameter resolves collisions. An agent could confidently invoke this for the intended use case without additional clarification.

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 descriptions are complete for both fields, and the description layers on meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the symbol can be an exact name, qualified spelling, or canonical stable ID, and that the package parameter specifically disambiguates a known in-package/external ID collision. This gives an agent richer decision-making for both parameters than the schema alone.

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 names the specific operation ('Resolve') and resource ('Go symbol spelling or canonical stable ID') and clearly separates it from siblings by emphasizing location-independent symbol identity plus current source location, not merely looking up a graph node. It explicitly notes the handling of ambiguous short names, which further distinguishes its behavior from other graph tools.

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 provides a clear WHEN TO USE statement ('Before persisting cross-document references or to re-resolve an existing stable ID') that gives an agent actionable context for invoking the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of the strongest possible guidance.

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