get_dependencies

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent operation with no destructive side effects. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the dependency graph includes both inbound and outbound references, which clarifies the scope of the result beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. No redundant information.

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 a simple purpose, a complete parameter schema, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description fully covers the tool's intended use. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (schema_name, object_name, database_name with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'dependency graph for a database object,' then clarifies the bidirectional nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object_details and list_objects, which likely retrieve different object metadata.

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 a clear context: use this tool to retrieve dependency relationships. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when this tool should be preferred over similar 'get' tools, though the sibling list includes get_object_details which could overlap.

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