get_bar_connections

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds beyond this by specifying that it fails on missing bar_id and returns empty list if no connections. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (two short lines), with front-loaded purpose and clear structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (single required param, no output schema, and annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, and failure modes completely. It appropriately differentiates from sibling tools.

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% (bar_id with description 'Bar ID'). The description adds the context 'what blocks what' but does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 'Get bar dependencies (what blocks what).' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bar dependencies'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_bar_children, get_bar_comments, and manage_bar_connection.

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 explicit usage cues via 'USE WHEN' and 'FAILS WHEN' sections. It tells when to use ('What depends on this?') and failure conditions (bar_id not found, empty list). It could mention alternatives or when not to use, but the given guidance is strong.

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