get_dependency_chain

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning both upstream and downstream relationships and supports recursive traversal with depth up to 3. However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the structure of the returned data. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by return type and use case. No superfluous information. Every sentence 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 the absence of an output schema, the description only vaguely states it returns relationships. For an agent to properly interpret the tool's output, more detail on the structure of the returned dependency chain (e.g., format of nodes, edges) would be beneficial. However, for a dependency chain tool with recursive traversal, the description provides a reasonable level of completeness.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the depth parameter's purpose more specifically: 'Depth 2+ includes nested dependsOn/usedBy on child nodes.' This goes beyond the schema's generic description of depth as 'Recursion depth (1-3, default 1).' The examples for name parameter also help.

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 the tool gets the full dependency chain for any component, hook, or service, specifying both upstream and downstream relationships. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_component_usages or get_data_flow. The mention of recursive traversal with depth parameter adds specificity.

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 indicates it is useful for understanding impact of changes and tracing data flow, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative tools like find_component_usages or whats_affected, which could help further differentiation.

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