librarian_depends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the semantic shape of the result (a dependency/blast-radius graph), but says nothing about traversal depth (direct vs transitive), result size, pagination, or cost on large entries, which matters for a graph query whose output schema the agent cannot preview.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the 'what breaks' framing before usage and parameters. The only redundancy is the paired 'what breaks if I change X' / 'blast radius' phrasings, which reinforce rather than pad.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-style lookup has no destructive semantics to disclose. Purpose, trigger condition, and both parameters are covered; only traversal scope and edge-case behavior are missing, which is a minor gap for a 2-parameter query tool.

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 0%, so the description must define both parameters — and it does: `entry_id` is explained with a concrete example ('payments-module'), and `caller` is labeled as an optional label to leave empty. It stops short of stating the id format or what happens with an unknown id, so not a 5.

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 ('show what depends on / connects to a catalog entry id') and glosses the meaning as the 'what breaks if I change X' graph. The sibling relationship is made explicit ('use after librarian_locate returns an [entry]'), so an agent can separate it from locate/brief without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear sequencing: call it after librarian_locate has produced an entry, in order to see that entry's blast radius. It also advises leaving `caller` empty. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to use instead for forward dependencies or for full impact reports), which keeps it at 4.

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