Build a resource dependency graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('a compartment's resources') and the derived outputs (graph, suggested order), which is modest added value. However, it does not disclose openWorldHint implications (live cloud inspection) or any rate/latency context.

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?

Single efficient sentence that front-loads discovery and then enumerates the outputs. No filler, though it compresses usage context that could have earned 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned, and annotations cover safety. Still missing is usage context relative to siblings that also list compartment resources, and any note on the live/openWorld nature of the discovery.

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% with a single well-documented compartmentId parameter (OCID), so the schema already carries full meaning. The description implies compartment scoping but adds no format or syntax details beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Discover a compartment's resources' / 'Build a resource dependency graph') and clarifies the return artifact (node/edge graph plus provisioning order). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_resources or generate_terraform, which also operate on compartments, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never names alternatives like list_compartment_resources or generate_terraform, leaving the agent to infer scope. It implies discovery but offers no routing criteria.

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