apidep_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build' suggests an analysis/computation operation, but the description does not state whether it is read-only, whether it produces side effects, what the output looks like, or any error conditions.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.

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 a simple one-parameter tool, this is minimally viable: it states the action and input format. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks clarity about the returned dependency map shape and any behavioral caveats, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'entries' parameter. The description adds a slightly different input format hint ('service:endpoint' vs 'service->dependency'), but does not meaningfully deepen understanding 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('dependency map'), and clearly identifies the input format ('service:endpoint lines'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the name and action already convey a distinct purpose from apidep_status and apidep_scan.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over apidep_status or apidep_scan, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The input format is implied, but no context is provided for when a dependency map is needed versus the alternatives.

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