get_agent_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Return' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. The information about return data (call counts, timestamps) is helpful but falls short of full transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, details, and usage guidance. It front-loads the core action and includes a clear 'Args' section for the parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: dependency edges with specific elements (models, connectors, sub-agents) and metadata (call counts, timestamps). For a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient, though a brief mention of the output structure (e.g., list of edges) would increase completeness.

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 input schema provides no description for the required 'agent_id' parameter (0% schema description coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining that the parameter accepts 'ID or name of the agent (as registered in the tool catalogue)', which goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Agent Id' title.

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 specifies that the tool 'returns dependency edges for a single agent' and lists what it shows (models, connectors, sub-agents, call counts, timestamps). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'get_agent_dependency_graph' by stating the latter is for the 'full organisation-wide view'.

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 explicitly states, 'Use get_agent_dependency_graph for the full organisation-wide view,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. This helps the agent make an informed selection.

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