gograph_review

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

The description discloses that it is '100% local, read-only static analysis tool with no side effects, no authorization needed, no rate limits, and zero destructive modifications'. This adds context beyond the annotations (e.g., local nature, no credentials) 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 into labeled sections (purpose, behavior, usage, completeness) and is concise at around 150 words. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states that the tool returns a 'structured checklist of all rules evaluated, listing exact package paths and files violating architectural boundaries'. Combined with annotations and schema, this makes the tool's behavior and output expectations 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that either 'symbol' or 'uncommitted' must be set, which is not reflected in the schema's required array. It also provides an example symbol value. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('run an architectural consistency and design constraint review') and clearly identifies the resource ('code boundaries or specific symbols'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `gograph_deps` by stating what it 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 states when to use the tool ('post-edit verification, CI pipelines, refactoring phases') and when not to use it ('Do NOT use for general dependency tree listing'), providing an alternative (`gograph_deps`).

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