get_asset_dependencies_recursive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the walk is breadth-first, deduplicated, capped at max_depth, and depth reflects first-reached level. That is meaningful disclosure, though there is no mention of performance cost on large graphs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and traversal semantics in a compact two-sentence opening, then gives the return shape. Every sentence carries information; the returns block is a slight expansion but the tool has no output schema so it 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return object and the meaning of 'depth'. It covers traversal behavior, parameters, and output shape adequately. The only gap is the absence of guidance about when to use this versus the direct-dependency sibling, but the core contract is complete.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates max_depth's default (3) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the depth-meaning clarification is really about the output, not the parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Recursively walk an asset's package dependencies') and the scope of the walk. The word 'recursive' implicitly but clearly distinguishes it from the non-recursive sibling get_asset_dependencies, and the algorithm details (breadth-first, deduplicated, capped) pin down exactly what operation is performed.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and the 'recursive' qualifier, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_asset_dependencies or get_asset_dependents, nor when a non-recursive or reverse traversal is more appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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