gograph_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context: 'Read-only; no side effects', prerequisite (.gograph/graph.json), and return structure. No contradictions.

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 and concise: function statement, prerequisite, read-only clarification, parameter requirement, when-to-use/not-to-use sections, and return format. 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 explains the return JSON structure (title, results[] with risk scores, verdicts, breakdown metrics, optional message). Covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and output adequately for an AI agent.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds crucial guidance: 'Requires either symbol or uncommitted=true', clarifying the mutual exclusivity and when to use each.

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 evaluates change risk profile, combining blast radius, complexity, test coverage, and dependencies into a normalized score. It distinguishes from siblings like gograph_review and gograph_plan by specifying different use cases.

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?

Provides explicit when to use ('Before committing edits or when planning changes') and when not to use ('For post-edit review... use gograph_review; for pre-edit plan... use gograph_plan'), with sibling tool names.

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