gograph_implementers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining server-side refresh behavior: 'checks freshness... refreshes in current analysis mode; precise and precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes.' This contextualizes behavior beyond standard 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?

The description is well-structured with logical sections: core purpose, technical detail, usage guidelines, return format. It is front-loaded with the main action. While slightly lengthy, every sentence provides value and there is no 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects: refresh behavior, return format ('List of implementing struct names with package paths and file locations; empty when no struct implements'), and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for effective agent use.

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% with both parameters documented. The description enhances the 'test_only' parameter by explaining its purpose: 'restrict to structs in *_test.go files (mocks/stubs).' This adds specific usage context beyond the schema's generic 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 concrete structs that implement a named Go interface via duck-typing.' It specifies a precise verb (Find), resource (concrete structs implementing an interface), and method (duck-typing). It also differentiates from siblings like gograph_interfaces and gograph_fields.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, listing use cases (polymorphism tracing, DI points, mock finding) and alternatives (gograph_interfaces for inverse direction, gograph_fields for struct fields). This guidance is precise and actionable.

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