gid_query_common_cause

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Find shared dependencies', which implies a read-only query. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if nodes are missing. This lack of transparency is a notable gap.

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 that fronts the core action and context. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'shared dependencies' means, the output format, or edge cases. The tool is one of many similar sibling queries, so more detail is needed for full contextual completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for nodeA and nodeB (the two nodes). It does not explain the optional graphPath parameter, so no extra value is added.

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 'Find' and resource 'shared dependencies' between two nodes, providing a clear and distinct purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like gid_query_deps or gid_query_impact by specifying a common-cause analysis.

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 implies usage for debugging but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gid_query_deps or gid_query_impact. No when-not conditions or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent with only implicit context.

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