gograph_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about freshness checks, retry behavior for precise/precise_fallback modes, and explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects.' No contradiction.

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, but slightly wordy. Could tighten the freshness check sentence without losing meaning. However, every sentence adds value, so it's still good.

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 complexity (graph search), annotations cover safety, and description covers return format (JSON with from, to, found, steps) and edge case (found:false). No output schema, but description compensates adequately. Complete context for agent.

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 descriptions for 'from' and 'to'. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the algorithm (BFS) and that it finds the shortest call chain, which informs the agent about the nature of the search.

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 purpose: 'Find the shortest call chain between two symbols — BFS from `from` to `to` through the call graph.' It distinguishes from siblings by naming gograph_callers and gograph_impact as alternatives, making the tool's unique role clear.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections are provided, with concrete examples like debugging call chains and alternatives for direct callers (gograph_callers) and transitive upstream callers (gograph_impact). This gives agents clear decision criteria.

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