gograph_returnusage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete context: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool', 'no side effects', 'requires no authorization or credentials', 'no rate limits', and 'zero destructive modifications'. This fully informs the agent of the tool's safety profile.

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 concise, using structured sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) to present key information efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions the return format ('matched call locations and variable binding status'). With one simple parameter and comprehensive coverage of purpose, behavior, and guidelines, the description is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'function'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's example and explanation, so the baseline 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: verifying patterns and coverage of return parameter usages and validation handling. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gograph_errorflow.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (checking proper inspection/validation/capture of return parameters) and when not (error flow bubbling, directing to gograph_errorflow). Includes an alternative tool name.

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