Get object dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: the data source (SYS.OBJECT_DEPENDENCIES) and the row limit (capped at 200 rows), which are behavioral traits not present in annotations.

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?

One concise sentence with essential information, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by source and limit. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description provides purpose, source, and a critical limit. No output schema exists, but the tool is simple enough; no major gaps.

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%, so all parameters (object_name, direction, schema_name) have descriptions. The description's phrase 'what an object depends on or what depends on it' aligns with the 'direction' parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Show what an object depends on or what depends on it', with a specific source (SYS.OBJECT_DEPENDENCIES) and a key limitation (capped at 200 rows). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_describe_table or hana_explain_plan.

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 exploring dependencies, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. Given the sibling list lacks another dependency-focused tool, the context is clear enough, though it could be improved with explicit guidance.

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