gograph_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'Read-only; no side effects' and details return format (struct names with package paths and file locations). Also specifies empty result behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise with clear sections (WHEN, NOT, RETURNS). Each sentence adds unique information; no redundancy. Purpose 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, description covers prerequisites, usage scenarios, return structure, and empty result behavior. No output schema is needed as return is clearly described.

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 covers parameter with description and examples. Description adds context by tying the parameter to the struct tag examples (e.g., 'users', 'roles') and explaining its role in the mapping search, adding value beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Find' and resource 'Go structs mapping to database table'. Provides examples of struct tags (db, gorm) and distinguishes from siblings gograph_fields and gograph_query, making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' with named alternatives. Also states prerequisite (requires .gograph/graph.json and running gograph build . first). Clearly guides when to choose this tool.

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