gograph_wiki

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

Annotations already mark as destructive and idempotent; description adds that it writes/overwrites files, checks freshness, and retries CHA/SSA graphs after source changes. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value; slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers output manifest, error conditions, and usage guidance. No output schema, but the description of what is returned (JSON manifest) suffices for the agent to process results.

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 single parameter 'output' is fully described by schema; description mentions default 'llm-wiki' directory and lists output files but adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond 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 that the tool generates a set of machine-first markdown pages from a static graph, listing every specific file produced. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on individual analyses.

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 guide the agent: use at session start for codebase orientation, not for targeted lookups (referencing gograph_context and gograph_source).

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