gograph_stale

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral details: requires .gograph/graph.json to exist, is read-only with no side effects, and explains the return structure. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, returns). Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy for a simple check. Still, it is front-loaded and organized.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains tool behavior, prerequisites (file must exist), and return fields (is_stale, graph_age, etc.), making it complete for effective use.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description naturally handles this by focusing on tool behavior. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool does without needing parameters.

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 checks if .gograph/graph.json is stale relative to Go source files, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like gograph_changes and gograph_build, making its unique purpose clear.

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 provide clear guidance. It advises using this tool as a pre-flight check before structural analysis and tells what to do if stale, while directing other needs to specific sibling tools.

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