gograph_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important prerequisite and states 'Read-only; no side effects' (consistent with annotations). It also mentions return behavior: 'empty when the name is not found'. No contradictions.

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 4 sentences, well-organized with purpose, requirement, usage guidance, and return summary. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly delegates to alternatives. No unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return (Node properties array with kind, file, line, signature) and the empty case. It covers the prerequisite and use cases, though slightly more detail on the output structure 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds concrete examples ('Graph', 'internal/search', 'server.go') and clarifies that the parameter accepts an exact symbol, package path, or file name. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 'Fetch AST metadata for a named symbol, package, or file' and lists the specific metadata returned (kind, file path, line number, signature, etc.). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is lighter than gograph_source and not for full source or call relationships.

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 explicitly provides 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, naming alternative tools like gograph_source, gograph_callers, and gograph_callees. It also mentions a prerequisite ('requires .gograph/graph.json — run `gograph build .` first'), giving clear actionable context.

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