get_twbx_calculation_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It accurately reveals the graph-building behavior, detection of circular dependencies, and inclusion of an ASCII tree visualization. It does not mention potential side effects (likely none), but for a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate and informative.

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 compact, three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it builds, what it identifies, and how to use it. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, key behaviors (roots, leaves, circular deps), and a usage hint. It does not detail the exact return schema or error scenarios, but for a dependency-analysis tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (e.g., full path, include source fields default false). The tool description adds practical context by referring to 'mainTwbPath from unpack_twbx output,' which helps map the twbFilePath parameter to a real user workflow. This goes beyond schema descriptions without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Builds a dependency graph showing which calculations depend on which in a Tableau workbook.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list fields or structure. It also enumerates specific outputs (root/leaf calculations, circular dependencies) that set it apart.

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?

States it is 'Ideal for understanding complex calculation chains' and explicitly instructs to 'Use with the mainTwbPath from unpack_twbx output,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. Does not explicitly exclude simpler cases or name alternative tools, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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