extract_table_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, performance implications, required permissions, or the format of the output. The term 'dependency graph' is vague and does not explain what response to expect.

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, making it concise, but it is too brief given the tool's complexity (10 parameters). It lacks structure and does not front-load critical information.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, scope-wide vs. widget-specific behavior, or limitations. The tool is underspecified for effective use.

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 very low (20%), with only scope and widget_id having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning for the remaining 8 parameters, such as include_loose_literal_scan or max_records_per_source. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 extracts a 'GlideRecord table dependency graph' from server scripts like Script Includes, Business Rules, and widgets. The mention of 'widget_id' hints at a specific scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sn_discover or query_local_graph, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions passing a widget_id for a single widget, but omitting it implies a scope-wide scan. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor any comparison to alternative tools listed as siblings.

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