gograph_literals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool', 'requires no authorization or credentials', 'no rate limits'. This reinforces safety without contradiction.

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-organized with clear sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and front-loads the main purpose. It is concise but includes some redundancy; could be slightly tighter.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers usage, safety, and return values. However, the erroneous mention of a 'type' parameter undermines completeness, and the pattern format is not fully explained.

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 schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'struct'. However, the description mentions an optional 'type' filter that does not exist in the schema, creating confusion. The description does not add meaningful details about the 'struct' parameter 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 verb 'Find', the resource 'primitive literals (strings, integers, floats, booleans)', and the condition 'matching a filter pattern'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_sql by noting it's for static analysis, not raw database queries.

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 states when to use ('identify hardcoded magic values, config strings, or credentials') and when not to use ('Do NOT use for raw database queries'), including a direct alternative ('use gograph_sql instead').

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