get_dependency_graph

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses bidirectional graph traversal up to depth, but lacks details on output format, performance implications, or whether it is read-only. Basic behavior is clear but deeper traits are omitted.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no extraneous words. Every piece adds value.

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?

Given output schema exists and only two parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and basic parameters. Minor gap: does not explain the output structure, but output schema likely covers that.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially. It explains depth ('up to the specified depth') and implies symbol_name as the symbol of interest. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a symbol (e.g., function, class) or provide format examples.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'dependency graph for a symbol', clearly indicating bidirectional dependencies (depends ON and depends ON IT) and max depth. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_call_graph (limited to calls) and get_subclasses (hierarchy only).

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'understand the impact radius of changing a symbol.' Implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on full dependency graph. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools for more specific tasks.

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