gograph_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral details: freshness checks, retry CHA/SSA after source changes, and states 'Read-only; no side effects'. 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?

Description is organized with sections (main purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, returns). It is concise enough for the amount of information, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value.

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 one optional param and no output schema, description fully explains return values: test function names, target packages, file locations, behavior when symbol omitted, and empty result. Covers all needed context.

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 has 100% coverage with one optional param 'symbol' described. Description adds context that omitting symbol returns all test edges, which is helpful but baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it 'find test functions...that exercise a named symbol' and 'list all test edges when no symbol is given'. Specific verb+resource (find tests) and distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_fixtures by mentioning when not to use it.

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?

Provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' (before editing a function, to audit coverage) and 'NOT TO USE' (use gograph_fixtures for test helpers, use 'go test' for running). Also gives alternative tool names.

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