gograph_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies a prerequisite ('Requires .gograph/graph.json — run gograph build . first'), confirms read-only and no side effects, and lists the exact metrics returned. No contradiction 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 concise with 5 sentences, front-loading the key metrics. It includes clear WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., 'Read-only; no side effects' is already implied by annotations), but overall it's well-structured and scannable.

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 zero parameters, complete annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, usage guidance, and return fields (listing specific keys). The return structure is sufficiently described for an agent to interpret the JSON output. Minor improvement could be a brief note on pagination or size limits, but not required.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. No deduction needed.

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 provides a single-call codebase briefing with specific metrics: top 3 hotspots, worst instability package, highest cyclomatic complexity function, total orphan count, god-object count. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the five separate tools it replaces (gograph_hotspot, gograph_coupling, etc.), 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'At the very start of any session' and explains it replaces five separate calls. It also specifies when NOT to use: 'For detailed drill-down into a specific metric (use the dedicated tool after reviewing summary),' providing clear exclusions and alternatives.

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