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 that the tool performs discovery and returns a computed graph, which is some behavioral context, but it does not disclose potential performance cost, depth of traversal, or how the graph is constructed.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the core action and clearly states the key outputs. Every phrase — 'node/edge dependency graph' and 'suggested provisioning order' — adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with a single parameter and strong safety annotations, the description gives a sufficient high-level account of the output. It could further detail the structure of nodes/edges or the provisioning order format, but since no output schema exists, the description still provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result at a basic level.

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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, compartmentId, is already described as 'Compartment OCID'. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so it does not need to compensate; the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('a compartment's resources') and states the precise output: a node/edge dependency graph plus suggested provisioning order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_compartment_resources or search_resources, which return raw lists rather than structural relationships.

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?

The description makes the primary use case clear: when an agent needs dependency relationships and a provisioning order rather than a flat resource list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is contextual rather than exclusionary.

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