Get Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the return is a dependency graph rather than text matches and that traversal can go either direction, though it says nothing about result size, truncation, or depth limits in practice.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability, distinction from the alternative, and the direction options. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of indicating what comes back (a dependency graph vs text matches) and the traversal directions. It is nearly complete for a read-only traversal tool, with only result-size/cost behavior missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so depth, direction, project, and entity_id are already documented in the schema. The description's gloss on depth ('up to N levels') and direction ('callers, callees, or both') restates the enum and property docs rather than adding format or defaulting details. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (trace) and resource (who calls / what it calls a function), plus the depth scope. It explicitly contrasts with text matching, so an agent can distinguish it from a grep-style search without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (grep-for-function-name) and the condition that selects this tool over it ('when you need the actual call chain'). However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_blast_radius, get_lineage, or get_data_flow, which an agent could easily confuse with dependency traversal.

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