gograph_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by noting 'The MCP server checks freshness before the call' and describing return behavior including 'count:0 JSON when no changed symbols exist.' This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases (e.g., rate limits).

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then structures modes, usage guidance, and return behavior with clear labels (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). It provides substantive information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does: 'Transitive upstream affected symbols; with mermaid=true, Mermaid flowchart text; count:0 JSON when no changed symbols exist.' It also explains freshness checking and differentiates from a sibling, making the description complete for this 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%, so schema descriptions carry the load for parameter formats. The description adds value by mapping parameters to usage modes: 'single symbol via symbol; uncommitted changes via uncommitted=true; git-ref changes via since.' This explains when each parameter is relevant, which is not fully captured in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Traverse the call graph backwards to find every symbol that transitively calls the target — the full upstream blast radius of a change.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying NOT to use for direct one-hop callers (use 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?

WHEN TO USE is explicit: 'Before refactoring a core function to see what breaks.' NOT TO USE is also explicit: 'For direct one-hop callers only (use gograph_callers).' The three modes (symbol, uncommitted, since) further clarify when each parameter is appropriate.

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