identify_hidden_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds transparency by detailing what behavioral analysis the tool performs: 'recurring meetings they likely run, approval chains they are part of, cross-team coordination duties, and implicit knowledge that would be lost if they departed.' This goes beyond the annotation to describe the analytical output.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second gives usage timing. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers purpose, use case, and the categories of findings, which is sufficient for an analyst to decide to call it. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but that's not critical given the tool's nature and the simplicity of inputs.

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 coverage is 100% with the employeeId parameter described as 'The employee ID to analyze for hidden dependencies'. The description restates this simply as 'for an employee' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Identify' and the resource 'non-obvious responsibilities and hidden dependencies for an employee', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like analyze_knowledge_risk or calculate_bus_factor. It also enumerates concrete outputs (meetings, approval chains, cross-team duties, implicit knowledge), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit use context: 'Use this during continuity planning or before role transitions.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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