gograph_usages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool is 'Read-only; no side effects' and requires a pre-built graph.json file, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, starting with the core action, then prerequisite, usage guidelines, and return info. It is well-structured with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains returns: 'File paths and line locations where the type name appears in signatures or struct fields; empty when the type is not referenced.' The tool has one parameter and is well-contextualized among 50+ siblings.

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 'type' parameter described as 'The type name to search for (e.g., 'AuthService', 'Repository')'. The description provides examples and clarifies the parameter's role, adding value beyond the schema.

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 every place a named Go type appears in function parameter lists, return type signatures, and struct field type declarations. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings by listing alternative tools for different use cases.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Before changing an interface or type definition') and when not to use it, listing specific sibling tools for each excluded scenario. It also notes the prerequisite of running 'gograph build .' first.

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