gograph_literals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond them: freshness checks, mode-specific refreshing, and CHA/SSA retry behavior. It also discloses return semantics (empty when no sites). No contradiction with 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 (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence contributes value, and the formatting aids scanning. Though moderately long, the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers required information: what it returns (file paths and line numbers), empty-result behavior, and relevant execution context (freshness/refresh). Combined with the strong annotations and schema, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing the single parameter as 'The name of the struct (e.g., 'User').' The description adds little beyond restating 'named Go struct' and the Foo{...} example, which does not materially enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured schema already fully documents the parameter.

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: 'Find every composite-literal initialization site for a named Go struct,' and clarifies the exact syntax pattern (Foo{...}). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating what it is NOT for (magic values via gograph_envs, factory functions via gograph_constructors), eliminating ambiguity.

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 guidance ('Before adding a required field to a struct') and NOT TO USE guidance with named alternative tools. This gives the agent clear decision rules for selecting this tool versus relevant siblings.

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