gograph_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about freshness checks, mode-dependent retry behavior (CHA/SSA after source changes), and reaffirms 'Read-only; no side effects', which aligns with annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 purpose first, then behavioral details, usage guidelines, and returns. It is informative without being overly verbose; however, it could be slightly more concise by merging the freshness check details into fewer sentences.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: operation, input, usage guidance, behavioral details (freshness, retries), return values, and edge cases (empty result). It is comprehensive for its 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?

The sole parameter 'struct' has 100% schema description coverage. The description says 'Given a struct name' which is essentially the same as the schema's 'The name of the struct'. No additional semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Find all Go interfaces satisfied by a named concrete struct'), the resource (struct), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool gograph_implementers by calling itself the inverse.

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, giving concrete scenarios and naming alternative tools (gograph_implementers, gograph_node, gograph_public) for different tasks.

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