gograph_returnusage

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

The description states 'Read-only; no side effects' and mentions freshness checks and retry behavior. This adds context beyond the annotations which already include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with 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 clear sections, but it is somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4 for being appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 covers when to use, not to use, behavioral details, and return value categories. Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. It is complete for the complexity of the 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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'function' well-described in the schema. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter itself, but it explains the output classification. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, even without additional param info.

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: 'Show how each caller uses the return value(s) of a named function: discarded, assigned, partially ignored, returned upstream, or passed directly to another call.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_callers and 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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'WHEN TO USE: Before changing a function's return signature... NOT TO USE: For error propagation tracing (use gograph_errorflow); for finding all callers without usage detail (use gograph_callers).' This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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