gograph_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating the prerequisite (requires .gograph/graph.json and 'gograph build .' command) and clarifying it is read-only with no side effects. It also describes return types, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 yet comprehensive, using structured sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) and front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, usage scenarios, return format, and exclusions. It is fully adequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter described as 'The symbol name to find tests for'. The description adds meaning by explaining behavior when symbol is omitted (returns all test edges) versus provided (finds specific symbol). This adds context beyond the schema alone.

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 finds test functions for a named symbol or lists all test edges when no symbol is given. It uses specific verbs ('Find') and resources ('test functions in *_test.go files') and differentiates from siblings by mentioning gograph_fixtures as an alternative for test helper infrastructure.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections with concrete scenarios and alternative tools (gograph_fixtures, go test). This provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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