gograph_path

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context about the MCP server refreshing source analysis before the call, which is a non-obvious side effect (e.g., performance or freshness implications). It doesn't contradict annotations and augments them.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It uses clear labels (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) to organize information without wasted 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 relatively simple tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, refresh behavior, read-only safety, usage guidance, alternative tool, and return format. It covers all essential aspects an agent needs 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% with clear descriptions for from, to, and mermaid. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of mermaid=true and clarifying the structured return fields (from, to, found, steps[]), which helps the agent understand the tool's contract beyond the bare parameter names.

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 the shortest BFS call chain from one symbol to another.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on pathfinding between two symbols, and explicitly contrasts with gograph_impact for transitive upstream reachability.

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 ('To confirm reachability between non-adjacent symbols') and when-not-to-use guidance ('For all transitive upstream callers') with a named alternative (gograph_impact). This fully addresses usage selection.

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