angular_dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool analyzes dependency injection relationships, but it does not disclose whether the project must be already loaded, what the output format is (graph, nodes/edges, list), or whether it is read-only. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.

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, using a single sentence (or two fragments) to convey the essential purpose. Every word adds value—'DI dependency graph' immediately communicates the output, and '@Injectable services and who consumes them' clarifies scope. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 apparent complexity (dependency graph generation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the graph's structure, how the input project name relates to the analysis, or how the result should be interpreted. Richer context is needed for an AI agent to confidently invoke and process the tool's output.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'name' with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter understanding adequately.

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 identifies the tool as generating a DI dependency graph focused on @Injectable services and their consumers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like angular_module_graph (which focuses on modules) or list_angular_services (which likely just lists services). The lack of an explicit verb is a minor weakness, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the AI to infer usage context from the name and sibling list. There is no explicit comparison to angular_module_graph or list_angular_services, which could be confused with this tool.

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