Rego dependency analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it returns transitive dependencies, but does not disclose potential performance implications or error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides adequate but not exceptional context.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (two strings parameters, no output schema), the description explains the return format conceptually. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., missing ref) but is complete enough for typical usage. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear description of what is returned.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description mentions an example ref but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 performs static dependency analysis for a Rego reference, provides an example ("data.example.allow"), and describes the output (base document references and virtual document references, transitively). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rego_eval or rego_check.

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 implies usage for analyzing dependencies of a Rego rule but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., rego_eval for evaluation, rego_fix for fixing). No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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