show_dependency_chain

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which provide a baseline safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what the response contains (what it runs on, depends on, ingress, storage), going beyond a trivial 'shows dependencies'. It does not mention limitations like recursion depth or error handling, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the added return-type detail is valuable.

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, information-dense sentence structure that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the response categories after a colon. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise yet complete.

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's modest complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations that declare read-only safety, the description adequately covers the essential context. It specifies what the tool returns without needing to detail return value structure. A minor gap is the lack of mention of any limitations (e.g., entity types not covered), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, with the 'entity' parameter thoroughly described as accepting service names, hostnames, or domains. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are provided to clarify edge cases or formatting.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the full dependency chain for any homelab entity.' It enumerates the exact types of information returned (run-on, dependencies, ingress, storage), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual entity details or health summaries.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by explicitly defining its scope ('full dependency chain'), which implies its use for relationship discovery. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use cases without confusion.

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