workflow_get_repository_graph

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral trait ('deterministic') and identifies the derivation source (journey manifest), but says nothing about cost, latency, caching, or whether the graph is persisted or recomputed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though there is room to spend a few more words on usage and return semantics given how sparse the rest of the definition is.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the graph returns (nodes, edges, format), and it does not. Combined with an undocumented parameter and no usage guidance, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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% and the single parameter has only length constraints (minLength 3, maxLength 80). The phrase 'journey manifest' weakly implies journeyId identifies such a manifest, but the description never explains the ID format or where to obtain it, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Build') with a specific resource ('repository dependency graph') and names the input source ('journey manifest'). However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as workflow_get_journey_graph, workflow_scan_repository_context, or workflow_analyze_http_dependencies, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow context (post-onboarding, pre-analysis) entirely from the tool name.

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