gograph_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description expands on these with concrete details: 100% local, read-only, no side effects, no auth/credentials, no rate limits, zero destructive modifications. 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?

Description is concise yet comprehensive, with clear sections for behavior, usage, and completeness. Every sentence adds value with 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully communicates what the tool does and returns. It specifies output as 'concise abstract list of struct schemas, function definitions, and interfaces,' providing complete context.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description does not need to document them. It correctly omits parameter details, earning baseline 4 for no params.

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 explicitly states the tool generates 'high-level skeletal outline structural abstractions of codebase files, excluding implementation details.' This directly states the verb and resource, and contrasts with sibling tools like gograph_source for full implementations.

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?

Guidelines are explicit: use when needing quick skeleton structure, avoid when full implementations are needed (use gograph_source instead). This clearly differentiates from siblings.

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