gograph_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and no destructive/intent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'without refreshing source analysis' clarifies that this tool does not trigger recomputation, and it specifies fallback conditions (missing, unreadable, unsafe graph.json). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches what annotations imply.

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 structured with clear markers (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without fluff, balancing detail with readability.

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 no-parameter, read-only health-check tool, the description thoroughly covers what it reports, when it uses fallback, and what it does not do. It also mentions read-only and no side effects, making it complete given the tool's simplicity and the lack of output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything (coverage 100%). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter detail since there are none, and it doesn't.

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 reports trusted persisted-index health and counts, with specific details on what is included (schema/build timestamps, statuses, counts). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives for live symbol profiling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (validate snapshot/fallback before relying) and NOT TO USE sections with named alternatives (gograph_node, gograph_complexity). This provides clear direction on when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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