gograph_plan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds 'Read-only; no side effects', prerequisite instructions, and the optimization of with_context eliminating follow-up calls. 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?

Single paragraph but well-organized with sections (WHAT, REQUIRES, SIDE EFFECTS, WHEN/NOT TO USE, RETURNS). Every sentence provides essential information 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?

Covers inputs, outputs (returns JSON structure), prerequisites, side effects, and usage guidance. Despite no output schema, the description fully prepares the agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: explains symbol supports short name, dot-notation, fully-qualified ID; clarifies uncommitted is for global plan of uncommitted changes; and details with_context bundles full context.

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 included elements (symbols, tests, routes, env vars, risk). It differentiates from siblings by specifying when to use and not to use.

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 (before multi-file refactoring/architectural changes) and NOT TO USE (trivial single-line fixes, post-edit verification, with alternative gograph_review) guidance is provided. Prerequisite (run `gograph build .`) is also stated.

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