gograph_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: freshness checking, refresh in current mode, retry behavior for precise graphs, and explicit 'Read-only; no side effects.' This complements annotations without 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?

The description is well-structured with sections and front-loads the purpose. While detailed, every sentence serves a purpose; it is concise for the complexity but slightly verbose with technical retry details. Minor improvement possible.

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 fully details the return JSON structure (changed_symbols[], tests[], routes[], etc.) and risk object fields. This gives the agent complete understanding of what the tool returns, making it highly complete.

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%, but the description adds value by stating 'Requires either symbol or uncommitted=true,' clarifying mutual exclusivity/constraint beyond the schema's optional fields. This improves usability.

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: summarizing the scope and risk profile of a change, including symbols, tests, routes, env vars, and SQL involvement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gograph_boundaries and gograph_plan by specifying what it does and does not do.

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 'WHEN TO USE' (post-edit verification) and 'NOT TO USE' (boundary enforcement or pre-edit planning) with alternative tool names (gograph_boundaries, gograph_plan). This gives clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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