Topos Generate Depgraph

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

The description explicitly states 'side-effecting', 'Not read-only and not idempotent', and 'intended to be approval-gated'. This adds significant value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by explaining the reason and the need for client approval. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the action, and the third provides critical behavioral and prerequisite information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, side effects, prerequisites, and approval requirement. It could mention the output format, but the absence is not critical for a simple generation tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'directory' parameter, which already explains its meaning and default. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'target directory', so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'dependency graph', and specifies it runs 'gitnexus analyze'. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the side-effecting nature and the specific CLI command, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: it is side-effecting, not idempotent, approval-gated, and requires the gitnexus CLI. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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