get_table_dependencies

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. It only mentions that the tool returns a 'full dependency map' in both directions, but fails to state whether dependencies are recursive, include views/procedures, or how the results are returned. It also omits performance, permission, or side-effect details, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical clarification adds useful detail without unnecessary verbosity.

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 has moderate complexity (dependency mapping) but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format, whether dependencies are direct or transitive, or how cycles are handled. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to anticipate the tool's behavior, so it falls short of a minimally complete description.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (schema and tableName), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full dependency map for a table') and explicitly clarifies the scope with '(what it depends on and what depends on it)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_relationships by emphasizing bidirectional dependency coverage.

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 usage for obtaining dependency information but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as get_table_relationships or detect_circular_dependencies. There are no stated exclusions or preferred contexts, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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