inspect_dependencies

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states function without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions needed, error handling, or side effects. The agent lacks insights beyond basic purpose.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence clearly states function, second adds use case. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Description explains what and when to use, but missing details on return format, error cases, and behavior for invalid inputs. With no output schema or annotations, the description is only partially 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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows dependencies and is used for impact analysis, with a specific verb 'shows' and resource 'database objects'. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_table and inspect_relationships.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for impact analysis before schema changes', providing clear context. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tools list implies different purposes.

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