gograph_untested

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral context: 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the MCP server checks freshness and refreshes in the current analysis mode, with precise/precise_fallback graphs retrying CHA/SSA after source changes. This is extra information that helps the agent understand side effects and freshness behavior.

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 longer than average but well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS). It is dense with useful information and every sentence contributes, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the freshness detail, which is minor.

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?

The description is comprehensive: it explains the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral details (freshness), and return format ('JSON array sorted by caller_count descending, each entry with name, kind, file, line, caller_count, and package'). With no output schema, it fully specifies the return structure and edge case (empty array when all called symbols have test coverage).

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 input schema already describes both parameters (pkg and top) adequately. The description adds context about the tool's full-sweep nature and output sorting, but does not meaningfully enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Sweep the full graph in one pass and return all production functions and methods that have at least one non-test caller but zero attributed test edges.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling gograph_orphans by noting 'untested symbols ARE used in production but lack test coverage'.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections are provided. It specifies use during 'test coverage audits or pre-release hardening' and advises against using it for single-symbol tests (pointing to gograph_tests) or dead code (gograph_orphans). It also mentions replacing sequential gograph_tests calls, giving clear alternative context.

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