gograph_plan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, no side effects. The description goes further by noting that precise and precise_fallback graphs retry after source changes, and that the MCP server checks freshness before calling. No contradictions.

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 clear sections: main purpose, freshness/retry note, parameter explanation, usage guidelines, and return format. It is slightly long but earns its length by providing necessary detail without redundancy.

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 (multi-planning for refactoring), the description covers inputs, behavioral details, usage guidance, and outlines the return JSON structure (inspect_first[], tests[], routes[], env[], risk, and optional inspect_contexts[]). No output schema, but the description compensates adequately.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter: symbol (short name, dot-notation, fully-qualified), uncommitted (global plan for all uncommitted changes), and with_context (inline full source, callers, callees to avoid follow-up calls).

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 tool generates a structured pre-edit plan for a target symbol, listing specific outputs (symbols to read, tests, routes, env vars, risk). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that it is for upfront planning, while gograph_review is for post-edit verification.

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. It recommends using for multi-file refactoring and not for trivial single-line fixes, and names gograph_review as an alternative for post-edit verification.

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