Get Group Dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only/no side effects, describes the empty-result case ('Empty when no member relies on another'), and explains edge direction via the mode values (delegated vs relied_upon) plus which calls create edges.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the read-only guarantee, then the return shape, then usage. The return-field enumeration is dense but each field (mode, status, validation_verdict, credit_state) carries semantic weight; slightly longer than strictly necessary given an output schema exists.

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 read-only audit/query tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, invocation context, edge semantics, and enumeration values. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 50%: group_id is documented as 'ID of the tag' but server_version is undocumented. The description adds context by using tag/member-model terminology consistently, tying the unspecified group_id to the tag concept, but it never explains server_version or parameter format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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 specific resource and scope: 'the reliance edges among a tag's member models,' and explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_reliance, which covers a single model's own edges in both directions. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases ('review the cross-model dependencies of a product or audit scope before an auditor export, or find broken edges') and names the alternative (list_reliance) with the condition that selects it. No inference required.

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