Query dependency graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it never says the tool is read-only, whether the graph must first be created via build_dependency_graph, or anything about result size, depth limits, or latency. The only extra context is the cryptic provenance note 'Built from system inventory (Module A3, Rule R6)', which does not help an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the mode enumeration; nothing is padded. The trailing provenance sentence ('Module A3, Rule R6') is of dubious value to an agent and is the one part that does not clearly earn its place.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the read-only nature, whether the graph must be pre-built, and roughly what comes back. It covers query selection well but leaves these operational questions open, making it only adequate.

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 already 80%, establishing a baseline of 3, and the description adds real meaning by explaining what each queryType value computes and, implicitly, which node parameters pair with which mode. It does not clarify maxDepth behavior or the startId/endId pairing beyond what the schema already states, so it is above baseline but not complete.

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 and resource ('Query a dependency graph') and enumerates the four query modes with parenthetical explanations, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling build_dependency_graph, so the build-vs-query distinction is only implied by the verb.

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 parentheticals ('what depends on these nodes?', 'what do these nodes depend on?', 'find paths between nodes') effectively tell the agent which query type maps to which question. However, there is no statement about when to use this tool at all versus scan_system or build_dependency_graph, and no prerequisites are given.

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