get_task_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the output includes (status, blockers, assignees) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, performance implications for large graphs, or access requirements. The behavioral context is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No superfluous information. The first sentence immediately communicates the tool's value and output. Highly 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?

Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned and when to use it. Minor missing details about the output format or limitations, but sufficient for typical use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that the project_id parameter identifies the project for which the graph is retrieved, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter's format or constraints.

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 clearly states it returns a dependency graph with tasks, status, blockers, and assignees. It uses a strong verb ('See') and explicitly lists the resource ('whole dependency graph'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools like get_briefing and get_retrospective by focusing on task interdependencies.

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 description provides specific use cases: 'find the critical path' and 'check whether the project is done.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like list_tasks for simple task listings. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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