gograph_public

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive-hints, and the description aligns with 'Read-only; no side effects.' It further discloses freshness-check/refresh behavior and CHA/SSA retry logic, which adds value beyond the annotations. 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?

Structured with a purpose sentence, behavioral note, WHEN/NOT sections, and RETURNS. Every sentence provides necessary guidance; it is front-loaded with the core function and uses formatting to aid scanning without being bloated.

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 fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by specifying the return shape (names, kinds, file locations) and edge cases (empty when no exports/not found). Combined with strong annotations and clear usage guidance, the context is complete for this read-only listing tool.

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% for the sole 'package' parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description's mention of 'specific package' adds no new semantic detail beyond what is already in the structured schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List all exported (public) symbols of a specific package' and enumerates the categories (functions, methods, types/interfaces, variables, constants). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like gograph_node or gograph_api through the public scope and purpose.

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?

Provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, naming exact alternatives (gograph_node, gograph_focus for private symbols; gograph_api for API drift). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its siblings.

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