document_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Side-effects: None. Read-only dependency audit' largely restates that. The added value is modest: it confirms the audit covers XREFs and images and reports resolution/load/completeness state, but no permission, performance, or failure-mode context is given.

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 short, front-loaded lines: purpose, side-effects, disambiguation. Efficient overall, though the side-effects sentence duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description needs only purpose, scope, and routing. It covers all three; the only shortfall is that it does not explicitly contrast with xref_list or drawing_audit for an agent choosing among them.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain. The description correctly frames the operation as acting on the 'active drawing' implicitly, which is the only scope detail an agent needs.

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 (Inspect) and resource (external-reference dependencies for the active drawing), plus the reported facets: contained, resolved, loaded, completeness. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names its closest sibling (xref_list) to draw the line explicitly.

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 disambiguation line gives a concrete usage condition: audit required file dependencies before archiving or sealing. That is a clear 'when', though it offers no explicit 'when not' or named alternative such as xref_list or drawing_audit.

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