List Reliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: it discloses 'read-only; no side effects' and explains the semantic meaning of both edge directions (consumer = declared delegations, provider = blast radius). It does not mention permissions/scoping or pagination, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a full burden-of-proof case.

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 operation and read-only guarantee, then return shape, then usage. The parenthetical about blast radius and the nested parentheses around sibling tool names add some density, but every sentence contributes meaning.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and interpretation of results (consumer vs provider edges). It is close to complete; only minor operational details (empty-model behavior, pagination/scoping) are absent.

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 is documented in the schema, while server_version is undocumented in both places. The description implies model scope ('a model's') but adds no syntax, format, or semantics for either parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters applies.

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 verb and resource ('List a model's cross-model dependency edges') plus the scope ('in both directions'), and names the sibling mechanisms it relates to (manage_reliance / attach_foundation). An agent can distinguish it from generic dependency tools like get_system_dependencies or link_system_dependency.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to inspect existing dependencies before creating or deleting edges, and to understand blast radius if controls change. It names the alternative tools (manage_reliance, attach_foundation) that perform the mutations, leaving no ambiguity about read vs write routing.

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