get_model_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only extra nuance is the word 'direct', which implies non-transitive results, but it says nothing about depth limits, what happens for an unknown model, whether the result is paginated, or how upstream and downstream sets are separated.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is closer to under-specification than to disciplined brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place the agent can learn the return shape, and it gives none: no indication of whether results are lists of model names, edges, or counts, nor how direction is represented. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is a significant omission.

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% for the single required parameter 'model_name', and the description does not compensate. It never says whether the value is a bare model name, a fully qualified name, or an ID, which is a real ambiguity for a lookup tool in a toolset that also exposes 'list_models' and 'get_model'.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pairing ('Return ... model dependencies') and narrows scope to 'direct upstream and downstream'. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it gets back. However, it never distinguishes this from plausible siblings like 'lineage' or 'model_impact', leaving the agent to guess which of the three to pick.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of the overlapping siblings ('lineage', 'model_impact'). The agent must infer the intended use case from the name alone.

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