list_dependents

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

The description explicitly mentions 'transitive blast radius', indicating recursive dependency traversal. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose potential performance implications, required permissions, or whether the output is a list of node references.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It wastes no space, though it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

While the description covers basic purpose, it lacks usage context. Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it should provide more guidance on when to use this tool, especially given the large sibling list.

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 adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Node Ref'. The parameter 'node_ref' is not elaborated, forcing agents to infer its meaning from the tool name.

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 lists what depends on a component, specifically highlighting transitive dependencies ('blast radius'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_dependencies', which likely show inverse relations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_dependencies' or 'get_neighbors'. The description implies transitive behavior but does not clarify scope limitations or prerequisites.

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