gograph_stats

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

While annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it states that the tool does not refresh source analysis, and it describes the fallback scenario (missing/unreadable/unsafe graph.json or unsupported source policy). It also lists the exact data categories returned, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. 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 dense but well-structured, with clear labels (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds relevant information: purpose, fallback conditions, read-only guarantee, usage guidance, and return type. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary context: it explains what the tool reports, under which conditions it uses fallback, and what the return value contains. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain any inputs. It adds value by describing the output content (schema/build timestamps, status flags, counts), which is useful even though no output schema exists.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report trusted persisted-index health and counts' and immediately clarifies the alternative fallback condition. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming gograph_node and gograph_complexity as the alternatives for live symbol profiling, clearly separating this tool's purpose.

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?

The description provides an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' section, explaining that this tool is for validating snapshot/fallback health before relying on data, and directing users to gograph_node or gograph_complexity for live symbol profiles. This is precise, actionable guidance with named alternatives.

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