gograph_risk

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the tool combines multiple metrics, returns normalized scores and verdicts, mentions server freshness checks, and retry behavior. It explicitly declares no side effects.

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 a clear main sentence, followed by details and usage sections. While slightly lengthy, each sentence adds information and no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multi-metric evaluation) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (results with risk scores, verdicts, breakdown metrics) and distinguishes from relevant siblings. It covers all necessary aspects.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by highlighting the mutual exclusivity requirement (either symbol or uncommitted=true), which is not obvious from the schema (both optional).

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 for symbols or uncommitted changes, listing specific components (blast radius, cyclomatic complexity, etc.) and output format (normalized 0-100 score and verdict). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (gograph_review, gograph_plan) in the usage sections.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections provide clear context and point to alternative tools. It also states the mutual exclusivity requirement (either symbol or uncommitted=true).

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