inspect_target_dependency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that evidence is gathered from two different organizations (target and isolated) and that the result is deliberately bounded and must not be read as a compatibility conclusion — an important warning about the trustworthiness of the output. It still omits what happens when a named component is missing in one environment.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource kinds, followed immediately by the critical limitation. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 an 11-parameter, four-required, discriminator-driven tool with no output schema and near-zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how the kind enum selects which identifier arguments to supply, nor what the comparison output looks like, which are the two things an agent most needs before calling 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?

Schema description coverage is only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails. It never explains which identifier parameter (logical_name, attribute_name, resource_name, global_choice_name, target_form_id, isolated_form_id) is required for which `kind`, even though this is a polymorphic discriminator tool where that mapping is essential. Only the enumeration of resource kinds loosely hints at parameter usage.

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?

States a concrete verb pair (read and compare) and enumerates the resource kinds it covers — table, field, global choice, JavaScript resource, main form — which maps directly onto the `kind` enum. It also draws a boundary with the closing disclaimer about full compatibility, though it never names a specific sibling (e.g. review_release_dependencies or inspect_isolated_dependency_graph) as the alternative.

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 phrase "Does not establish full compatibility" functions as an implicit when-not: the agent learns this is for bounded evidence gathering rather than a compatibility verdict. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the many neighboring review_*/inspect_* dependency tools, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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