Get component graph

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It explains the output structure (nodes with workspace-relative path, label, type, unused flag, and import links), which is useful, but it provides no information about potential side effects, performance, or error cases. It is a read-only operation implied, but not explicitly stated.

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 that is information-dense without redundancy. It front-loads the key action and outcome.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value's composition. It could be improved by noting that the graph is computed from the project source or by clarifying the output format, but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to anticipate the result.

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% (the only parameter 'root' has a clear description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's absolute path requirement, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: the full Svelte component dependency graph, enumerating node fields and link types. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_component (single component) and get_routes (routes only).

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 the tool's use case (needing the full dependency graph), but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_unused or get_component. No exclusions or usage scenarios are provided.

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