Find smart group dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses that cycles are reported as node paths, missing group references are surfaced, blast radius is transitive with depth, 'not member of' is treated distinctly, and unfetched groups are named to avoid implying independence. This goes far beyond a generic mapping description.

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 long but every sentence adds unique value, covering purpose, outputs, edge cases, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers nuance. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 graph analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers return types (cycles, missing refs, blast radius, distinct criterion types), error cases (unfetched groups), and parameter semantics. It leaves no obvious gap for an agent to misuse or under-trust the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantic depth by explaining 'blast radius' (transitive changes with depth), which elaborates on the 'group' parameter's purpose. The 'concurrency' parameter is self-explanatory with its default, and the description doesn't repeat it but complements the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map which computer groups depend on which others, via Computer Group membership criteria.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like getComputerGroup or findDeviceGroups by focusing on dependency mapping rather than listing or retrieving individual groups.

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 implies usage context: it maps dependencies, reports cycles, missing references, and blast radius given a group. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its specialized purpose makes it evident when to use it. The 'given a group' clause signals an optional input pattern, and 'Omit for the whole graph' in the schema further clarifies usage.

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