Resolve a mod dependency tree (batched)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses read-only behavior, highlights over-collection with 'IMPORTANT', states bounds (depth 4, 400 nodes), and explains truncation with the 'unexplored frontier' listed. It also flags 'v0: all field paths unverified', which is valuable risk context.

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?

Five dense, purposeul sentences cover algorithm, result shape, caveat, bounds, truncation, safety, and maturity. The IMORTANT warning is front-loaded after the primary verb, and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, it specifies the return core: every reachable mod, raw relationType integer per edge, and the TRUNCATED/frontier behavior. It also explains why over-collection occurs and how seeds work via file_ids, leaving no material gap for safe invocation.

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?

Schena description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for mod_ids, file_ids, and max_depth. The main description primarily adds algorithm context (breadth-first, batched POST) but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Walk the dependency graph of one or more mods breadth-first', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing batched bulk POST resolution rather than per-node GETs. Nothing is vague or tautological.

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?

It provides clear context: use when you need to resolve a dependency tree, and the file_ids parameter includes the explicit guidance 'Use this when you know which file you are running.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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