get_pdg_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether it triggers cooking, what happens with invalid paths, error behavior, or the structure of the returned graph. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no metadata.

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 concise, with a single clear purpose line followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose and there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter, though it could pack more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential inputs but omits the return format of the PDG dependency graph structure and any caveats. An agent might call it successfully but would not know how to interpret the result without further probing. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The only parameter, node_path, is clarified as 'TOPnet or TOP node path', which adds useful type context beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not explain path syntax, supported node types, or edge cases, so compensation is partial.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PDG dependency graph structure') for a 'TOP network'. It also mentions node_path can be a TOPnet or TOP node path, which clarifies scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_network_overview or get_cook_chain that could be related.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It lacks any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where a user would choose this over other graph/network inspection tools. No exclusions or 'use X instead' hints are given.

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