gograph_skeleton

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses prerequisite (must run 'gograph build .' first), read-only nature, no side effects, warning about output size, and return type (multi-line text, always non-empty when graph has symbols). No contradictions 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (WARNING, WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). It is front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence provides necessary information.

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, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all contextual needs: purpose, usage, prerequisites, side effects, output nature, and warnings. It is fully complete.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to explain parameters. It adds value by mentioning the prerequisite, which is not a parameter but a pre-condition.

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 what the tool does: emit stripped API signatures (struct, interface, function/method only) for the entire repository. It distinguishes from siblings like gograph_public and gograph_source by scope and content type.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (need compact map of entire codebase shape) and when not to use (full implementations use gograph_source; single package use gograph_public). Also includes a warning about large output with an alternative.

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