Build a dependency graph for file routes, mapping each route to its handler, dependencies, and models.
Build a full dependency graph for the routes of a file: route → handler → dependencies → models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does communicate the main output structure (route → handler → dependencies → models). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it can fail for unresolved routes, or whether it writes anything, but nothing in the wording suggests mutation.
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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaning: full graph, routes of a file, and the exact traversal chain.
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?
An output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not required, and the chain covers the graph content. But the required file/project_root parameters are left ambiguous and there is no selection guidance relative to the many sibling graph tools, so an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate: it never defines whether file is a path or route identifier, what format it expects, or how project_root anchors resolution. The two parameter names are the only semantics available.
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 names a specific verb and resource: build a full dependency graph for routes of a file, and the arrow chain clarifies the graph's scope. It is clear and distinguishes from broader graph tools by restricting to routes, though it does not explicitly call out sibling-based alternatives.
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 imperative 'Build...' implies the use case: call this when you need a route-to-model dependency graph. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to siblings such as get_dependencies or build_knowledge_graph, leaving selection among the many graph tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.