get_component_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the requirement for dependency reference data and mentions direct vs transitive dependencies. However, it omits details like response format, error conditions, or performance considerations, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the main function, and the second adds a critical requirement. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description explains what the tool does and its prerequisite, it lacks information about output format (e.g., graph structure, nodes/edges). Given the absence of an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing how the dependency graph is represented. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. For instance, it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'includeTransitive' beyond aligning with 'transitive dependencies' in the description.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a dependency graph (direct and transitive) for a component. The verb 'returns' and resource 'dependency graph' are specific. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_component' or 'list_components' which serve different 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?

Description mentions a prerequisite: requires a CEM built with dependency reference data, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the niche clear for an AI agent.

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