graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose something valuable beyond the schema: the returned graph merges declared dependency/prerequisite/ownership structure with live service state, which is a genuine behavioral trait. However, it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor anything about cost, latency, or scope limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then appends the differentiating detail about live state. No filler, no redundancy.

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-value shape need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented in schema. What the description adds — the three graph dimensions and the live-state merge — covers the essentials for a read-only introspection tool. It is only slightly short on scope/cost expectations.

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?

There is a single optional 'runtime' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains name/id resolution and the omit-to-use-current-project behavior. The description adds nothing about this parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns no bonus.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Return') with a specific resource: the 'declared dependency, prerequisite, and ownership graph', and it distinguishes itself from a static topology dump by noting that live service state is folded in. It never contrasts itself with siblings like status, plan, or runtimes by name, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as status or plan, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'live service state folded in' faintly implies this is the tool for combined static-plus-runtime topology, but that hint is too weak to count as real guidance.

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