detect_circular_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it performs a database-wide scan. This is a significant gap for a tool that an agent would invoke to detect issues.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description tells the agent what the tool does, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of cycles, a report, a boolean) or how the results are structured. Given the low complexity, this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.

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 one optional parameter with a description ('Schema name (default: dbo)'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already fully documents the only parameter, so the 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 ('detect') and clearly identifies the resource ('circular dependencies in foreign key relationships'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_relationships or get_table_dependencies that deal with general dependency or relationship discovery.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to find circular foreign-key dependency cycles, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but not differentiated from related tools.

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