gograph_plan

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds details: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool. It has no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, and performs zero destructive modifications.' No contradiction 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 well-structured with labeled sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and is concise, though it could be slightly more terse. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and output type, but lacks exact return structure since no output schema. However, it mentions 'step-by-step refactoring workflow,' which is sufficient for this tool's context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new per-parameter details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the overall purpose. No additional semantic value needed.

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 it 'analyze structural changes and dependencies to output a detailed refactoring execution plan,' using a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on different analyses.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool before complex multi-file changes and warns against using it for trivial single-file edits, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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