gograph_sql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description reinforces and adds: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool, no side effects, no authorization or credentials, no rate limits.' 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?

Three sentences: purpose, behavior/safety, usage guidelines with completeness. Front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 the simple tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter hint, and return format. It states it returns a list of SQL statements with file/line locations and parent functions.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'term' parameter. The description adds an example ('SELECT') and mentions optional filtering, but the schema already provides meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and analyzes raw SQL literals, database touches, and transaction blocks. It specifies the verb (extract/analyze) and the resource (SQL-related code elements), distinguishing it from sibling gograph_schema which handles Go structs.

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 states when to use (auditing database interactions, debugging, reviewing raw queries) and when not to use (Go structs mapped to database tables, with alternative sibling gograph_schema). Also mentions optional keyword filter.

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