get_task_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions the return includes 'raw task graph structure with agent assignments and state,' implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or discuss performance implications of the limit parameter, leaving gaps.

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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: first states what it does, second explains usage, third gives alternative. No fluff, front-loaded with main action.

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 has an output schema (so return format need not be detailed) and a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, and alternative. It could be more complete by mentioning the graph's directionality or structure, but it is adequate for selection and invocation.

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% (one parameter fully described in schema). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action (build and return) and the resource (full task dependency graph). It distinguishes from a sibling tool (get_workflow_graph) by specifying the alternative's purpose, ensuring the agent selects correctly.

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 use cases (visualize dependencies, detect cycles, understand state) and directs to an alternative for different needs. While no explicit 'when not to use' is given, the context of the alternative provides sufficient guidance.

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