Diagnose how dependencies were extracted for a theorem. Provide a theorem ID to inspect the extraction logic, optionally recursive, to verify or debug dependency graphs.
Explain how dependencies were extracted for one theorem-like node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | ||
| theorem_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Explain' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether recursive traversal is performed, whether results depend on workspace state, or what the output structure looks like.
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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and earns its place, even though other dimensions suffer from missing details.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the diagnostics output contains, how recursive affects behavior, or when to choose this tool over related siblings. An agent would likely need to inspect the tool implementation to call it confidently.
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. It adds minimal context by saying 'one theorem-like node,' which loosely maps to theorem_id, but it says nothing about the recursive parameter or its meaning. The schema's type and default values are all the agent has to work with.
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 the action ('Explain') and the resource ('how dependencies were extracted for one theorem-like node'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependencies, which presumably returns the dependencies themselves rather than explaining their extraction.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dependencies, where_used, or workspace_get_dependency_diagnostics. The description implies a diagnostic context but does not state when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.