get_dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only operation by stating it 'shows' dependencies, but does not explicitly confirm safety, mention performance impact, or describe the output format beyond 'graph'. The presence of an output schema helps but is not leveraged in the description.

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 concise, with only two sentences of purpose and a structured 'Args' section. No redundant information, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the main functionality and parameter usage. It does not mention limitations or performance, but these are not critical for a basic read-only tool. Some cross-reference with sibling search tools could improve context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'file_pattern' parameter: 'Optional substring to filter files (case-insensitive). Empty string analyzes the entire project.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 that the tool retrieves the import/dependency graph of the codebase, using specific verb 'get' and resource 'dependency graph'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle search, ingestion, and status checks, as none of them produce a dependency graph.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to understand module boundaries and find the right place to make changes.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for detailed code inspection) or mention alternative tools like search for finding specific imports.

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