get_tool_dependent_agents_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, what 'dependent agents' means, or any limits, so it contributes nothing beyond structured fields.

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?

The description is a single short phrase that is front-loaded but under-specified rather than concise. It lacks the information an agent needs to understand scope and return behavior.

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 list endpoint with a required tool_id and pagination, the description does not explain what dependent agents are, what the return contains, or how this differs from knowledge-base dependent-agent tools. With no output schema, this gap is significant, though the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 cursor, tool_id, and page_size all documented in the input schema, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.

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/title with the word 'tool' removed. It does not state that the list is of agents dependent on a specific tool, and it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_knowledge_base_dependent_agents and get_knowledge_base_bulk_dependent_agents_route. This is nearly a tautology.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and required tool_id parameter.

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