gograph_untested

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for what it adds beyond them: freshness/refresh behavior, test_resolution=possible versus none semantics, CHA interface target handling, same-name receiver conflation suppression, 'static attribution, not runtime coverage proof', and lexical exclude matching without filesystem access. This is genuinely rich operational context, not a restatement of 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 long but dense, with every section earning its place: core semantics, resolution edge cases, parameter behavior, WHEN/NOT TO USE, and complete RETURNS format. The only redundancy is 'Read-only; no side effects', which duplicates the annotations; the rest is purely additive and appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose before the details.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema, yet the description fully compensates: it documents the exact return shape ('JSON array sorted by caller_count descending with name, kind, file, line, caller_count, package, test_resolution, and optional possible_test_count'), the empty-result case, the meaning of test_resolution values, and the edge cases an agent would otherwise be blind to. Nothing needed for a correct invocation is missing, apart from external requirements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra meaning beyond the schema: exclude globs match repository-relative source paths lexically without filesystem access, map from CLI --exclude flags, and the return is sorted by caller_count descending, which clarifies the semantics of top. This is more than the schema alone provides, though the marginal gain is moderate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sweep the full graph in one pass and return called production functions and methods without an exact/static attributed test edge') and sharpens the boundary with an explicit negative condition. It also differentiates from siblings by name (gograph_orphans, gograph_tests), so an agent can identify this tool among more than 60 siblings without opening any schema.

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 ('test census or pre-release hardening'), NOT TO USE ('for running tests or proving branch execution'), and names the alternatives ('Distinct from gograph_orphans... replaces N sequential gograph_tests calls'). The routing decision is fully stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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