get_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add behavior: symbol traces semantic call chains, and includeSource produces a bundled Markdown of affected code. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or the default return format, but "analyzes" and "get" make the safe read nature reasonably clear.

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 short and front-loads the purpose. The opening "Ultimate Impact Analysis tool" line is marketing fluff, but every other sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the core purpose, key conditional behaviors, and the primary use case. The main omission is a precise description of the default graph response, though the tool name and "analyzes what depends on" largely convey it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for two parameters: symbol enables semantic call-chain tracing, and includeSource produces an AI-prompt-ready Markdown bundle. The remaining parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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 states a specific operation: "Analyzes what files or symbols depend on a target," and frames it as blast-radius impact analysis. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling validation/guardian tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: "Use this to understand the blast radius of your changes." It also gives conditional guidance for providing a symbol and setting includeSource, but it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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