dep_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only reveals the output format ('JSON') and the notion of a full tree, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how it handles cycles, or what the response structure is.

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, consisting of a single short phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key output concept, but the brevity leaves out important context.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-phrase description is insufficient for reliable invocation. The description does not explain how parameters like 'entry', 'exclude', or 'max_depth' affect the result or what the JSON output looks like.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, relying entirely on the schema.

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 says 'Full dependency tree as JSON', clearly identifying the tool's output as the complete dependency graph. The word 'full' helps distinguish it from directional sibling tools like 'forward_deps' and 'reverse_deps', though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 offers no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'circular_deps' or 'import_path'. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases.

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