Get AppDynamics service dependency map

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

The description discloses that confidence depends on snapshot density and that a warning surfaces when data is sparse, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects. More behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 two sentences: the first defines the core function, the second adds important behavioral nuance about confidence and warnings. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool that synthesizes from model and snapshots, the description covers the transformation and output quality hint. With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., snapshots must exist) and any performance or resource considerations, leaving some gaps for a complex operation.

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 description does not add any information beyond the input schema. The schema already describes the parameters (application as name or id, timeRange with type and duration). Given 50% schema description coverage, the description missed an opportunity to clarify parameter usage or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 it synthesizes a tier→tier/backend dependency map from the application model and transaction snapshots, which is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like appd_get_application_model or appd_get_transaction_snapshots. The mention of MCP-level aggregation and confidence dependence on snapshot density adds precision.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing transaction snapshots), alternatives, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context to decide between tools.

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