get_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only lookup, but says nothing about whether results are direct dependencies only, how the recursive flag affects traversal, or what the output nodes contain. These are meaningful behavioral details an agent would need.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

The core invocation is clear: provide a theorem_id and get referenced theorem-like nodes. The output schema likely covers return shape, and the schema defines the recursive parameter's type and default. However, the description lacks contextual guidance about recursion, the boundary between direct and transitive dependencies, and when to choose a sibling tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It implicitly maps 'given theorem' to theorem_id, but the recursive parameter is completely unexplained in both the description and schema descriptions. The agent has to guess its semantics from the parameter name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('theorem-like nodes referenced by the given theorem'), and the directional wording distinguishes it from the likely inverse sibling where_used. However, 'theorem-like nodes' is somewhat vague and the description does not explicitly call out the sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to prefer get_dependencies over alternatives such as where_used or get_theorem. The description implies dependency lookup, but does not state when recursive should be used or how this differs from reverse-reference lookup.

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