list_reliance

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. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects,' directly addressing safety. It further explains the return structure and semantics (consumer vs. provider edges, blast radius), providing rich behavioral context beyond simple mutation awareness.

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 highly concise: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The first sentence states the core function, the second clarifies safety and output semantics, and the third gives usage context. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 relative simplicity, the presence of an output schema (notifying the agent of return structure), and thorough coverage of safety, semantics, and usage, the description is complete. The only minor omission is server_version semantics, but that falls under parameter semantics rather than overall contextual completeness.

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 50%: model_id has a description, but server_version does not. The description fails to compensate for this gap; it does not mention server_version at all, and only implicitly references model_id via 'a model's.' Since the schema does half the work and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, the low coverage leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tool's function: 'List a model's cross-model dependency edges, in both directions.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('cross-model dependency edges'), and defines the scope ('in both directions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_reliance and delete_reliance by focusing on inspection rather than mutation.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to inspect existing dependencies before creating or deleting edges (create_reliance / attach_foundation / delete_reliance), or to understand what breaks if this model's controls change.' This names specific alternative/mutation tools and gives concrete scenarios, making when-to-use unambiguous.

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