workspace_get_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that dependencies are returned, implying a read operation, but it does not explain the effect of the 'recursive' flag, whether dependencies are direct or transitive by default, or any restrictions on which theorems qualify. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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?

Although the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description omits important context needed for reliable use: what 'recursive' means, whether the tool is scoped to the current workspace, and how its results differ from related dependency/citation tools. The description alone would not let an agent confidently choose this tool among the many siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'global_theorem_id' is a globally identifying string via 'globally identified,' and it says nothing about the meaning of 'recursive' or the default behavior. Most parameter semantics are left to the agent to infer.

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 action ('Return dependencies') and identifies the target resource as a 'globally identified stored theorem.' This is specific enough to convey the core purpose, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_dependencies or workspace_get_proof_dependencies, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention workspace context, when recursive behavior might be needed, or how this differs from similar sibling tools such as workspace_get_proof_dependencies or get_dependencies.

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