merovingian_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions filtering by repo_name but does not state whether the tool mutates state, requires authentication, or returns only direct vs transitive dependencies. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very short, with a one-sentence core purpose and an Args section that directly addresses the parameter. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It fails to specify the output format, pagination, or error conditions, and lacks context about the graph's structure. An output schema exists but the description doesn't hint at the response structure.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no docstrings for the parameter. The description partially compensates by stating that repo_name is optional and filters the query to a specific repository's dependencies. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema properties.

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 it queries the dependency graph, which is a clear verb+resource pair. However, the description is minimal and doesn't elaborate on what querying entails or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like merovingian_impact or merovingian_breaking. The purpose is adequate but lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like merovingian_breaking, merovingian_impact, and merovingian_consumers suggest different query contexts, but the description gives no clues about differentiation or prerequisites.

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