Get Dependency Graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the graph is always full-notebook and cannot be scoped. It says nothing about permissions, cost/latency on large notebooks, or failure modes, leaving real gaps for a graph-traversal read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the trailing 'always FULL notebook graph' caveat is placed after the content list where it belongs. Minor cost: the second sentence is a dense enumeration that could be trimmed without losing much.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. What remains missing is the usage layer: no stated preconditions (active session/server_url binding) and no guidance on choosing this tool over get_variables, which is the main decision an agent faces here.

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 100% and the two non-trivial parameters (depth, cell_id) already carry explicit NOT IMPLEMENTED refusal notes in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies even though the description's 'always FULL graph' line loosely reinforces why those args are refused.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get the cell dependency graph') and the second enumerates the actual content (variable relationships, parent/child edges, ownership, cycles). That materially separates it from get_variables or get_cell_map, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the content list alone.

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 statement, no prerequisite (e.g. active session required), and no routing to alternatives such as get_variables for a flat variable list. The only usable cue is the implicit 'always the FULL notebook graph' constraint, which hints at when not to bother with scoping rather than when to call the tool.

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