get_service_dependencies_multi_env

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and says it 'returns service relationships,' but it does not detail potential errors, permission requirements, or output structure. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and effectively communicates the tool's function and typical use case.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for basic understanding. However, it leaves out details such as the exact return format and behavior for invalid environments, which prevents a perfect score.

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 already covers 100% of the parameter documentation, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('service dependencies') plus the distinguishing scope ('across multiple environments'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_service_dependencies and get_apm_service_dependencies by emphasizing multi-environment support.

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?

It provides clear context by stating it is 'useful for comparing architectures across prod, staging, dev, etc.', which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, stopping short of full explicit guidance.

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