workspace_get_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and object; it does not explain recursive behavior, prerequisites, error cases, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the operation, with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficiently structured given the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves key invocation details unexplained: the recursive parameter's meaning, workspace prerequisites, and how this differs from sibling tools. With no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this is insufficient for confident correct use.

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%. The description hints at 'globally identified' mapping to global_theorem_id, but it says nothing about the recursive parameter or how it changes the result. An agent cannot determine whether recursive is necessary or what it controls.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Return dependencies of a globally identified stored theorem.' It clearly identifies the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_dependencies or where_used.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dependencies or where_used. The phrase 'globally identified stored theorem' implies a workspace/global context, but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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