Build dependency graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the graph contains (subsystems, modules, drivers, symbols as nodes; dependency, hierarchy, usage as edges), but is silent on operational traits such as whether the build is idempotent, how expensive it is, what it requires as prior state, or where the result is stored.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and sources, with no filler. The parenthetical '(Module A3, Rule R6)' is cryptic and references undefined labels, costing it a perfect score but not enough to be wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally cover prerequisites and the shape of the result. It partially compensates by describing node and edge types, but omits whether the graph is persisted, how it is consumed, and what must exist beforehand for the build to succeed.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('dependency graph') and names the data sources (kernel config, loaded modules, subsystem mappings), so the agent knows what it produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling query_dependency_graph, which reads a graph that this tool presumably constructs, leaving the build-vs-query split to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told whether scan_system must run first or whether this should be invoked before query_dependency_graph, which is the most natural sibling relationship in this toolset.

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