get_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether it is read-only, destructive, requires permissions, or any side effects. The term 'analyzes' is vague and leaves the agent uncertain about safety.

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 a single concise sentence, but lacks structured formatting (e.g., sections). It is efficient yet minimal, earning a high score for brevity but not perfect for structure.

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 lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain return values or output format (e.g., graph vs. tree). For a dependency mapping tool, this is a significant gap. The schema's outputFormat enum hints at formats, but the description should clarify what each produces.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 maps and analyzes dependencies between Terragrunt modules, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_unused_modules or check_stack_structure by focusing on dependencies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for project analysis, but without context on when get_dependencies is appropriate, the agent lacks decision support.

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