gograph_query

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating it's '100% local, read-only static analysis tool' with 'no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, and performs zero destructive modifications.' This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 explicit sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS), is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 covers the tool's functionality, including return format ('structured list of matching symbols, files, and imports, along with their location and kind'), despite the absence of an output schema. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'term', with a clear description already. The tool description adds little beyond that, as it merely echoes the schema's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search the Go repository for symbols, packages, files, or imports using a keyword term.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like gograph_source and gograph_node.

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?

The description includes explicit usage guidelines: 'Call this tool during the initial exploration phase when you have a keyword... Do NOT use if you already know the exact symbol name (use gograph_source or gograph_node instead).' This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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