get_service_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns all services and their relationships', implying a read-only query, but does not explicitly confirm it is safe, mention rate limits, pagination, or the fact that an optional serviceName filter changes the result. The behavior is only partially 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no superfluous content. Every word earns its place, making it efficiently concise.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description is incomplete in context: it omits any mention of the optional serviceName filter, does not clarify what 'relationships' means or the return structure, and fails to position the tool against the similar sibling tools. It provides only a high-level summary, leaving some gaps for an 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (env and serviceName), each with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'service dependencies for a given environment', specifying the scope (environment). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_apm_service_dependencies or get_service_dependencies_multi_env, so it misses the opportunity for clear differentiation.

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 gives a generic use case ('useful for understanding service architecture and dependencies') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar sibling tools, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. It fails to address the presence of overlapping alternatives in the tool list.

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