List Reliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: 'Read-only; no side effects' is an explicit safety guarantee. It also explains the meaning of consumer versus provider edges and calls out that provider edges represent blast radius, giving the agent real insight into the returned data. This goes well beyond a tautological statement of the tool's function.

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 compact and well-ordered: the action, the read-only guarantee, the return shape, the semantic definitions, and the use cases each earn their place. It front-loads the most decision-relevant information before the usage guidance. There is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains output semantics, side-effect profile, and when to use it, and the output schema further covers return values. The only substantive gap is the undocumented server_version parameter, which is required but not explained anywhere. Because that parameter is the one missing piece, the definition is slightly short of 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?

model_id is adequately documented in the schema ('ID of the model to inspect') and the description deepens that context by explaining the edges relative to that model. However, server_version has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description either, so one of the two required parameters remains semantically opaque. The 50% schema description coverage is only partially compensated for.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a model's cross-model dependency edges, in both directions.' This immediately distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, such as get_capabilities or get_system_dependencies, and makes the tool's core purpose unmistakable. The return-shape illustration reinforces what is being listed without conflating it with other list-type tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before creating or deleting reliance edges, and when assessing what would break if a model's controls change. It also names the relevant sibling tools (create_relance, attach_foundation, delete_relance) that correspond to those edge mutations. This is direct, practical routing guidance rather than a vague hint.

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