adr_dependencies

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'build the dependency graph' without indicating side effects, destructiveness, or performance implications. The read-only vs. write nature is unclear.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and optional filter. No redundancy, efficient word choice.

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?

Given the complexity of building a dependency graph and 15 sibling tools, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't specify output details (though output schema exists), format options, or prerequisites. Leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 indirectly explains the 'number' parameter (filter to transitive deps) but does not explain 'format' (default mermaid) or 'project_path'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 'Build the dependency graph of ADRs' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions optional filtering by transitive deps. This distinguishes it from siblings like adr_diagram (visualization) and adr_list (plain listing). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from adr_impact or adr_link.

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?

The description mentions optional filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like adr_diagram or adr_impact. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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