dep_graph

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only inspection but does not disclose return format, whether traversal is transitive, required permissions, or failure modes. The word 'inspect' hints at non-mutating behavior, but no explicit guarantees are given.

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 a single front-loaded sentence, which is efficient, but it omits essential information. True conciseness balances brevity with necessary detail; this veers into under-specification.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and only vague parameter descriptions, the tool description is insufficient for an agent to use it effectively. It lacks details about return values, edge cases, or relation to sibling tools.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the parameters. An agent cannot determine what 'symbol_name' should look like (e.g., fully qualified name or plain string) or what 'project_path' means or its default behavior when omitted.

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 'Inspect dependency relationships for a symbol' uses a clear verb ('inspect') and identifies a specific resource ('dependency relationships for a symbol'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like semantic_code_search or expand_symbol, though it does not specify whether it shows incoming or outgoing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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