what_breaks_if

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'transitive closure' and the concept of staleness, but does not disclose details such as whether the operation is read-only, error handling for missing or invalid slugs, or performance considerations. The behavioral description is minimal.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a usage example. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (transitive closure) and the presence of an output schema (which makes return value documentation unnecessary), the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks details about the input parameter and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'slug', and the description does not mention 'slug' at all. It provides no context on what the parameter represents or how it should be used, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 explains the tool's purpose as 'transitive closure of downstream nodes' and illustrates with a concrete example. It is specific about what it does, but could more explicitly state that it returns a list of affected nodes.

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 provides an example use case ('if I restate the spend cube, what reviews do I need to redo?') that implies impact analysis, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dependencies' or 'get_dependents'. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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