build_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only scanning behavior but does not disclose details like the scope of files scanned, potential performance impact, or whether any state is modified. The word 'complete' is ambiguous without defining boundaries.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Although the tool has a simple schema and an output schema, the description lacks behavioral expectations, parameter explanation, and usage context. It is barely adequate for an agent to invoke without further clarification.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter 'path' is not explained in the description. An agent cannot infer whether path refers to a directory, file, or glob pattern, or how the default '.' behaves.

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 specific verbs ('Scan files and construct') and specifies the resource ('dependencies and references in the project'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling file operations and analysis tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_architecture or impact_analysis. The description only states what it does, not the recommended context or exclusions.

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