get_apm_service_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the data source (trace data), time range, and bidirectional dependency scope. However, it does not mention potential errors, return format, or any limitations, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and scope with all key details, and the second adds a brief use case. No filler or redundancy, appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only dependency map tool, the description clearly defines resource, time range, and included relationships, which is sufficient despite no output schema. It slightly loses a point for not stating what happens if no dependencies exist or if the service is not found, but overall it adequately prepares the agent.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptive text, including examples and format notes. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets the APM service dependency map for a service over a time range, specifying both incoming and outgoing dependencies. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_service_dependencies or get_service_dependencies_multi_env.

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 a general use case ('Useful for understanding service interactions') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_service_dependencies or query_traces. Guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it lacks clear alternative differentiation.

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