inspect_dependency_graph

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains BFS traversal, depth bound, direction options, de-duplication, and that it composes inspect_asset recursively. Lacks explicit mention of side effects or performance, but for a read operation it is largely transparent.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first states main purpose and composition, second distinguishes from sibling, third mentions de-duplication. Every sentence adds unique information, no redundancy.

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 complexity (graph walking, bidirectional), description covers traversal algorithm, parameters, and de-duplication. However, no output schema exists and description does not explain return format (e.g., list of nodes/edges with direction labels). A slight gap.

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 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema: explains depth range rationale (1-8, bidirectional sweep can produce vast subgraph past depth 4) and clarifies include_referencers default false and that edges record direction. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 it walks the asset dependency graph BFS from a root, defaulting to dependencies downward, and optionally includes referencers upward. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_reference_chain' by noting defaults and bidirectional sweep capability.

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 contrasts with 'get_reference_chain' in terms of direction default and enabling a single bidirectional pass versus two separate calls. Also mentions de-duplication across directions, guiding when to use this tool over alternatives.

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