gograph_impact

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it's 'Read-only; no side effects' and requires a prerequisite file, plus explains return format and error cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Concise at ~100 words with clear sections (modes, usage, return). Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Covers prerequisite, all usage modes, when to use/not to use, alternative tool, and return format. No output schema but return info is described. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the description adds significant value by grouping parameters into three modes and detailing symbol input formats (short name, dot-notation, FQID). This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 traverses the call graph backwards to find all transitively calling symbols, providing the full upstream blast radius. The description specifies three modes and distinguishes the tool from siblings like gograph_callers.

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 provides WHEN TO USE (refactoring core functions) and NOT TO USE (direct callers, refer to gograph_callers). Also recommends using uncommitted=true after editing, giving practical guidance.

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