get_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the tool returns immediate predecessors and implies it is a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it does not modify data or require permissions, but for a simple query tool this is sufficient.

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 very concise—two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides guidance on alternatives. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the description covers the main functionality and provides an alternative, it lacks definition of the 'slug' parameter. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are not required, but the parameter gap reduces completeness for a tool with a single parameter.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'slug' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'slug' represents (e.g., the node identifier). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to define the parameter meaning.

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 tool returns 'Direct upstream nodes' for a given node, answering 'what does this need?'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'build_order' by noting it returns only immediate predecessors, preventing confusion.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for immediate predecessors) and provides an alternative (build_order for full closure). This helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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