gograph_query

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it requires a pre-built graph index and mentions staleness checking. It confirms no side effects and describes the return format, which annotations do not cover.

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 but is slightly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary details without excessive wordiness. Could be trimmed slightly but overall effective.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, prerequisites, usage conditions, return format (list with kind/package/line), and empty result handling. No gaps identified.

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 single parameter 'term' is well-described in the schema with examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add extra parameter info. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: searching the graph index for symbols, packages, files, and import edges that match a keyword substring. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it is for exploration when the exact location is unknown, contrasting with gograph_source, gograph_node, and gograph_deps.

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 provide clear context. It mentions the prerequisite of a .gograph/graph.json file and suggests checking staleness with gograph_stale. It also names alternative tools for use cases like exact symbol lookup or dependency tree analysis.

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