consumers

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

With no annotations, the description still declares 'Read-only' and, more valuably, discloses a coverage caveat: only dependencies registered via register_dependency or found by scanning appear, so results may be incomplete. It does not describe behavior for an unknown surface or result ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, safety profile, data-coverage limit, and routing guidance. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, data provenance, and the sibling alternative. It leaves the shape of returned repos (names, paths, relationship metadata) and the empty-result case implicit.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema's own example ('http:GET /orders/:id'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds conceptual framing (a 'surface' lives in the dependency graph) but no syntax or format 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 ('List the repos that consume a surface') plus the data source ('the declared-dependency graph'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like whoowns. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger ('Use before changing a surface to see who is affected') and names the alternative for the adjacent question ('use whoowns for file owners'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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