nexus_dependency_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic clarity for dependencies vs dependents but does not disclose behavioral details such as output format, traversal depth, cycle handling, or potential large-result considerations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and remains entirely focused. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 query with clear parameters and annotations, the description covers the core use case. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the returned dependency information looks like (e.g., list, graph, nesting), leaving agents to infer the return format from the tool name.

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 50%: the 'file' parameter is already documented as a workspace-relative path, while 'direction' has no textual description beyond its enum. The tool description compensates by explaining the direction values ('what it depends on' vs 'what depends on it'), adding real meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and identifies the resource ('dependencies of a file' or 'dependents'), with parentheticals defining both directions. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling tools like nexus_references or nexus_impact_analysis.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a file's dependencies or dependents. However, it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use this tool, and it does not reference any sibling tools.

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