rails_lens_dependency_graph

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, but it does imply a read operation via 'generation'. Given high annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise (a single phrase), but it is under-specified, lacking necessary detail. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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 complexity of dependency graphs and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the graph represents, how depth affects it, or how to interpret the output.

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 description does not mention any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it completely ignores the parameters, leaving the agent confused about 'entry_point', 'depth', and 'format'.

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 clearly states it generates a dependency graph, but it lacks specificity about what kind of dependencies (e.g., Rails model/class relationships) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'circular_dependencies' or 'data_flow'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues about appropriate usage scenarios.

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