dangling_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the selection criterion (edges whose endpoints fail to resolve), which is the core behavioral fact. It is silent on whether the call is read-only, whether results are ordered or paginated, and whether the edges are reported or repaired, leaving meaningful gaps for a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded clause that defines the predicate with no filler, which is well matched to a zero-argument query. It is a noun fragment rather than a full statement of action, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the return shape, and with no parameters there is nothing to document on the input side, so the definition of the predicate is the only essential content. It stops just short of complete by omitting any read-only assurance or guidance on the sibling diagnostics that overlap with it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The sentence is spent entirely on defining the result set rather than on inputs, which is the right allocation here.

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 names a specific resource (edges) and the exact predicate that qualifies them: src and/or dst no longer resolving to a node. That is a concrete, unambiguous definition an agent can act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent diagnostics in the sibling list such as orphans, contradictions, or stale, so the agent must guess how they partition the same problem space.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no indication of when a dangling-edge check is appropriate versus orphans or contradictions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the definition of the predicate.

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