get_transitive_graph

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further and discloses degraded-mode behavior — partial results flagged when deps.dev is unreachable, errors, or truncation by a node cap. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of describing pagination or how partials are surfaced in the payload.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, output shape second, failure/degradation behavior last. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description usefully sketches nodes (g/a/v) and edges (from/to indices) plus the node-cap truncation caveat. Combined with the safety annotations this is nearly complete; the missing piece is guidance on when this graph tool beats the sibling comparison/expansion tools.

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 three required, self-explanatory parameters (groupId/artifactId/version), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description's 'GAV' shorthand confirms the parameter roles but adds no format or syntax 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the resolved transitive dependency graph for a Maven GAV') and names the upstream source (deps.dev GetDependencies). It implies a distinction from siblings like expand_bom and compare_upgrade_closure by emphasizing the raw node/edge graph, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to choose this over expand_bom, compare_upgrade_closure, or check_multiple_dependencies, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether version must be resolved first). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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