get_knowledge_base_dependent_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, no scope of 'dependent' (direct vs transitive vs all), and no hint about what a dependent agent even is.

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?

It is maximally short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient packing. Four words that only echo the title are less useful than a sentence that earns 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 four-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and multiple near-duplicate siblings, the description does not explain what dependent agents are, what the returned list contains, or how this differs from the bulk variant. It is too thin to guide correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% with four well-documented parameters (cursor, page_size, dependent_type enum, documentation_id), so the schema carries the semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 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?

The description "Get Dependent Agents List" essentially restates the tool name (get_knowledge_base_dependent_agents) without adding a verb+resource specificity beyond it. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_knowledge_base_bulk_dependent_agents_route or get_tool_dependent_agents_route, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given that sibling tools cover bulk dependent agents and tool dependent agents, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to guess which retrieval is appropriate.

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