topos_generate_depgraph

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

Discloses side-effecting nature, the underlying `gitnexus analyze` command, conditional no-op behavior, and force regeneration. Annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those.

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 purpose and side-effect. The second sentence efficiently explains no-op and force behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, side effects, default behavior, and force parameter. No output schema exists, but for a side-effecting graph generation tool this is adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (force, directory, gitnexus_dir) already has a clear description. The description restates force=true behavior but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the specific action: generate the `.gitnexus` dependency graph via GitNexus. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `topos_depgraph_status` (status check) and `topos_generate_graphify_graph` (different graph type).

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?

Provides clear context: default behavior ensures the graph and no-ops when current, which implies when to use it (to guarantee graph existence). Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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