ListNodeDependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the dependencies are returned in, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest they are), or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more specific about what type of dependencies are being retrieved to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how dependencies are structured, or provide any context about the relationship between this tool and similar sibling tools. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 '获取数据开发节点的依赖节点' (Get data development node dependencies) clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'dependencies', but it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being retrieved. It doesn't specify whether this returns upstream dependencies, downstream dependencies, or both, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like ListUpstreamTasks or ListDownstreamTasks which might serve similar purposes.

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. With sibling tools like ListUpstreamTasks, ListDownstreamTasks, ListLineageRelationships, and GetLineageRelationship that might provide related dependency information, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred over those alternatives.

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