get_related_components

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns three types of relationship information (depends on, depended by, confused with). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences are sufficient: the first defines the output, the second gives usage advice. No superfluous text.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return categories (dependencies, dependents, confusions) to set expectations. For a tool with one parameter and no nested objects, this is complete enough.

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 has 100% description coverage (the parameter is described as 'Component name or id.'). The description does not add additional nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns dependency and relationship information (what a component depends on, what depends on it, common confusions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component_spec or get_component_summary by focusing on dependencies.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before implementing to understand what needs to be built first,' providing a clear when-to-use guideline. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context implies it is the right tool for dependency analysis.

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