dependency_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutates the plan, nor does it mention any safety, side effects, or prerequisites. It only lists what is computed, not the behavioral traits of the operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. However, the parenthetical citations to Miller & Cohen 2001 and 'critical-path method' are unlikely to help an AI agent and add minor noise, keeping it from a perfect conciseness score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It names graph components but does not describe their representation (map, list, nested structure), nor does it address edge cases or input prerequisites. This is incomplete for a tool with a single unstructured parameter.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'plan' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the expected structure of the plan array (e.g., how strings/objects represent tasks or dependencies), so it fails to compensate for the schema's vagueness.

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 a specific action ('Build a plan's dependency graph and critical path') on a specific resource, and enumerates the outputs (levels, predecessors, parallel groups, gating chain). This distinguishes it from sibling planning tools such as plan_tracker or plan_quality, which focus on other aspects.

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 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance. The academic references ('hierarchical planning... critical-path method') imply a scenario, but the agent is not told when to select this tool over other planning-related siblings. The usage context is only implied.

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