project_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Static dependency code graph' strongly implies a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly confirm that scripts are not modified, what the returned representation contains beyond the named categories, or whether generation is expensive or asynchronous. Adding one sentence on side effects/output would close the gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The '[HIGH_LEVEL]' tag, verb, graph scope, and parenthetical enumerating graph contents are all informative and non-redundant.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose and output contents at a high level, but not the output structure or exact return format. It also lacks guidance on when this is the right analysis tool vs project_map/project_analyze, so selection is not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty schema already fully defines the input surface; description does not need to compensate, yielding the baseline score of 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and names an unambiguous resource: the full static dependency code graph across all scripts. The parenthetical (require chains, module relationships, remote event calls) gives concrete scope so an agent can distinguish it from generic project or property tools.

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 use case is implied—invoke when the static dependency structure across scripts is needed—but the description never says when to prefer this over sibling tools like project_map, project_analyze, or script_grep, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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