gograph_source

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

The description discloses freshness checks, analysis-mode refreshes, CHA/SSA retry behavior, source read confinement to regular .go files, symlink rejection, and error/ambiguity handling. These go well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, adding valuable context without contradiction.

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: first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by behavioral notes, a clear WHEN TO USE/NOT TO USE section, and a RETURNS/error section. Each sentence adds value, no fluff or 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, constraints, return content (raw source with file paths/line numbers), and error conditions. It fully equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides full parameter detail, including supported formats (short name, dot-notation, fully-qualified ID), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond listing symbol types, which is redundant. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it retrieves verbatim Go source for a named symbol with complete bodies/declarations, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming gograph_callers/gograph_callees and gograph_node as alternatives for other use cases.

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 are provided, with concrete alternative tools named (gograph_callers/gograph_callees for call hierarchy, gograph_node for AST metadata). This gives the agent clear decision criteria.

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