gograph_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool,' 'no side effects,' 'requires no authorization or credentials,' 'no rate limits,' reinforcing and expanding beyond the structured 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 sections for general purpose, behavior/safety, usage guidelines, and completeness. Every sentence adds value and no unnecessary information is present.

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 tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral attributes, parameter examples, and return description. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds example values ('Serve', 'BuildGraph') and clarifies return type ('call chains connecting the two symbols'), improving usability beyond the schema alone.

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 'Trace and find the direct or transitive call paths' using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from the sibling gograph_callers by explicitly advising against use when only direct callers are needed.

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 USAGE GUIDELINES section explicitly states when to use ('tracing synchronous control flow, debugging deadlocks, mapping execution paths') and when not to use ('Do NOT use if you only need direct callers'), with a named alternative (gograph_callers).

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