gograph_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the server checks freshness before the call, refreshes in the current analysis mode, and precise graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes. It confirms read-only and no side effects, aligning 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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, caching behavior, usage guidelines, and return information. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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 the simple schema (one parameter with good description) and rich annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, when to use it (including alternatives), behavioral details (caching, freshness), and return values (array with kind, file, line, signature; empty if not found). No gaps.

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 single required parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema with an explanation and examples. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'AST metadata for a named symbol, package, or file'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is 'lighter than gograph_source for metadata-only lookups' and lists the specific metadata attributes (kind, file path, line number, etc.).

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, giving clear context for when to prefer this tool over alternatives like gograph_source for full source code and gograph_callers/gograph_callees for call relationships.

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