inspect_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool analyzes dependencies and shows specific types of references, but does not mention whether it is read-only, response format, or any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about behavior beyond what is stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and specific capabilities without unnecessary words or structure issues.

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 single parameter and specialized nature, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it shows, though it could mention the expected output format (e.g., list, graph) for fuller completeness. No output schema exists, but the description still provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 for the single parameter 'path' is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A score of 3 is appropriate as the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool analyzes class-to-class dependencies within a plugin, detailing specific aspects like use/import statements, constructor injection, and method type hints. This distinguishes it from sibling 'inspect_*' tools that focus on other aspects such as conventions, hooks, or project summary.

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 does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_conventions or inspect_file. It implicitly suggests use for dependency analysis, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to other tools.

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