get_tuning_dependency_graph

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never states that the operation is read-only, whether the traversal is bounded/expensive, how 'depth' affects cost or results, or what the response shape looks like; the only behavioral hint is the implicit notion of a graph traversal.

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?

It is a single short parenthetical fragment with zero waste, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than disciplined editing. There is no front-loaded verb or lead sentence an agent can act on.

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 three-parameter traversal tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell from the description what a call will return, how depth bounds the traversal, or how to interpret direction.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'what depends on / is used by' loosely gestures at the direction enum, but depth, instance_id, and which direction value means which of the two phrases are left undocumented.

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 names the resource — a cross-tuning reference graph — and parenthetically explains what the graph encodes ('what depends on / is used by a tuning'). That conveys the tool's purpose better than the bare name alone, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit statement of what the call returns or does, so it sits at vague-but-interpretable rather than specific.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when an agent should traverse the dependency graph versus reading a tuning directly (read_vanilla_tuning) or searching for one (search_vanilla_tuning). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the phrase 'dependency graph'.

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