org_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explains depth hops and edge kinds, but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens at edge cases (e.g., depth=0). It provides moderate transparency.

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 concise (about 100 words), well-organized with a clear purpose, then breakouts for edge kinds, and a usage hint sentence. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool of moderate complexity, the description covers the core function, parameter, edge types, and usage scenarios. Lacking an output schema, the agent may need to infer the return format, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for call selection.

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 only parameter, depth, is described as controlling the number of hops, with a default of 2 indicated in the schema. However, the description does not clarify constraints (e.g., maximum depth, allowed values) or behavior for invalid inputs. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds some but not complete value.

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 states the tool returns 'the bidirectional inter-repo dependency graph' for the current organization, specifying it shows dependencies and dependents up to a depth. It also enumerates the three edge kinds (IMPORTS, CALLS_API, SHARES_SCHEMA), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dependency_graph and who_calls.

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 explicitly advises when to call the tool: 'when the user asks about service dependencies, what depends on X, or when investigating cross-service call chains.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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