gograph_routes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond that: it specifies it's a '100% local, read-only static analysis tool' with no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, and zero destructive modifications. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 labeled sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the text is concise.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, but rich annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage boundaries, and return format ('structured table'). It is complete for a discovery 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for zero params is 4. The description mentions the return format ('structured table'), which adds value.

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 the specific verb 'Discover' and explicitly names the resource 'all registered HTTP routes and endpoints defined inside the codebase'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling `gograph_endpoint`, which covers downstream call details.

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 (to map out entire web API structure) and when not to use (if need downstream call details, use `gograph_endpoint` instead). This provides clear usage boundaries.

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