get_pdg_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not describe the return format, performance characteristics, side effects, or required permissions. For a tool that likely returns a complex graph structure, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loads the purpose. The Args section is slightly noisy because it includes a 'ctx' parameter not present in the input schema, but overall it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the dependency graph structure looks like or what an agent can expect. It does not, leaving the return value completely opaque. For a tool whose purpose is to retrieve a graph, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by specifying that node_path accepts a 'TOPnet or TOP node path', which is helpful beyond the bare schema (which only says 'string'). However, it provides no format examples or constraints, leaving the parameter partially specified.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the PDG dependency graph structure for a TOP network.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand it retrieves a dependency graph, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_top_network_info or get_top_scheduler_info.

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, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The phrase 'for a TOP network' implies context but does not constitute usage advice.

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