get_object_dependencies

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is honest about what the tool returns (a list of referenced objects) and frames it as a read/analysis operation. However, it doesn't detail the output format, whether dependencies are recursive (i.e., references within referenced SPs), or how it handles objects that don't exist. The description gives the essential behavioral intent but leaves some ambiguity about recursion depth and error behavior.

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, well-crafted sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose, the input types, and the use case. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded. It earns its place in every phrase.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, placing the burden on the description. The description covers the purpose and use case well but omits details like the return format of dependencies, whether it recursively resolves nested SP dependencies, and error handling for nonexistent objects. It's acceptable for a straightforward dependency-listing tool but leaves room for the agent to wonder about edge cases.

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% for the 2 parameters (name, schema). The description mentions the input is an SP, vista o trigger, which maps to the 'name' parameter, but doesn't clarify what the 'schema' parameter does beyond what its name implies. The description provides minimal added meaning for the parameters; the schema's `default: dbo` for schema conveys its own intent. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate more but only partially does.

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 what the tool does: lists objects (tables, views, other SPs) referenced by an SP, view, or trigger. It uses a specific verb (lista) and resource (objetos dependientes), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_object_definition (which retrieves definitions) and list_tables (which lists all tables). The 'impact' purpose adds clarity.

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 includes 'útil para entender el impacto antes de modificarlo', which implies when to use it (before modifying an object), giving some contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related purposes, such as get_object_definition for reading a single definition or run_select_query for querying data.

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