Get AppDynamics service dependency map

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

No annotations are given, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It reveals that results are aggregated at the MCP level and that confidence depends on snapshot density, with warnings when sparse. This adequately informs the agent about reliability, though it lacks details on error conditions or permissions.

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 sentence plus a concise parenthetical note, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and caveats efficiently.

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 the tool has an output schema (not shown), return values need no explanation. The description covers the synthesis approach and a key caveat (sparse snapshots). It is reasonably complete for a mapping tool, though it omits prerequisites or error handling.

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 50% (application and timeRange have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the missing half. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Synthesize a tier→tier/backend dependency map from the application model + transaction snapshots (with exit calls).' It specifies the verb (synthesize), resource (dependency map), and distinguishes from siblings that deal with alerts, anomalies, events, etc.

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 for dependency mapping and notes that confidence depends on snapshot density with a warning when sparse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, providing only implied guidance.

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