gograph_usages

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds freshness checking behavior and retry logic for precise analysis modes. No contradiction with annotations; adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: opens with core purpose, then behavioral details, then usage guidelines, then return value. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy or fluff.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, usage context, and return values. The RETURNS section compensates for missing output schema by describing result format.

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 clear description of the 'type' parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, which is adequate. For a single parameter, 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?

Description states specific verb ('find') and resource ('every place a named Go type appears in function parameter lists, return type signatures, and struct field type declarations'). Distinguishes from sibling tools in the NOT TO USE section, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides WHEN TO USE context ('before changing an interface or type definition') and lists concrete alternatives for different scenarios (NOT TO USE for call sites, literals, impact). This helps the agent select the correct tool.

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