gograph_source

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: states it's 100% local, read-only, no side effects, no authorization needed, no rate limits, zero destructive modifications. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint; description enriches context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (BEHAVIOR, USAGE, COMPLETENESS) and is reasonably concise. A minor reduction could be possible but overall effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (exact source code block with line numbers). Combined with annotations and clear usage guidance, the tool definition is fully complete for an AI agent to use 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'symbol'. The description adds an example ('BuildGraph') and ties the parameter to the tool's function. This adds meaningful 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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts Go source code body for specific symbols (function, method, struct, interface). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_callers and gograph_callees by explicitly excluding call hierarchy 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 usage guidelines: use when needing symbol implementation without loading files; avoid for call hierarchies and instead use named alternatives (gograph_callers/gograph_callees). Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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