gograph_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about refreshing in-memory analysis and explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects,' which aligns with annotations and adds behavioral nuance beyond what schema or 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, usage, and return info. No unnecessary words; every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description mentions the return type (same as gograph_errorflow) which compensates. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters (via schema). The only minor gap is that the return structure of gograph_errorflow is not detailed, but the reference is sufficient.

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 100% coverage for both parameters ($term, $no_tests). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 is an alias for gograph_errorflow, specifies that it refreshes in-memory analysis and traces error strings from definition to HTTP handlers, and explicitly mentions it is read-only with no side effects. This distinguishes it from siblings by directing to the preferred tool.

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 explicit guidance: 'WHEN TO USE: Prefer gograph_errorflow; this alias exists for compatibility.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative, which is excellent clarity.

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