gograph_mocks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description reinforces read-only, no side effects, and adds details on server freshness checks and retry behavior for precise modes. 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections but slightly verbose. Could be shortened without losing meaning, but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, description explains return values (struct names with file locations, empty when no mocks). Covers behavioral context, freshness, and use cases adequately.

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?

Only one parameter 'interface' with schema description 'The name of the interface (e.g., 'AuthService')'. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond schema. 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 it finds structs in test files implementing a named interface (test doubles, mocks, stubs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from gograph_implementers by noting equivalence with test_only=true and compatibility reason.

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?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE (when writing tests, want to find existing mock implementations) and NOT TO USE (for production implementers, use gograph_implementers; prefer gograph_implementers(test_only=true) for new code). Also explains freshness checks and refresh behavior.

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