gograph_implementers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds further context: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool. It has no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, and performs zero destructive modifications.' This adds value beyond 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 clear sections: purpose, behavior & safety, usage guidelines, completeness. It is front-loaded with core purpose and each sentence adds value 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned ('detailed list of implementing concrete structs and their package file locations') and provides an example. This is adequate for a two-parameter tool, though more detail on return format could be added.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by noting that the interface parameter is required, gives an example ('error'), and for test_only says it returns structs in test/mock files and replaces gograph_mocks. This provides context 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds all structs implementing a specified interface via Go duck-typing, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like gograph_fields and gograph_mocks by explicitly mentioning alternatives.

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 scenarios (tracing polymorphism, dependency injection, locating mocks) and when-not-to-use (looking for struct fields, use gograph_fields). It also explains the test_only parameter replaces gograph_mocks.

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