get_dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists dependency types tracked, indicates output structure, and states the prerequisite. It does not discuss performance or side effects, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 organized with usage examples and a bullet list of dependency types. It is detailed but not excessively long; every sentence adds value.

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 description explains the output (dependency graph with nodes and edges) and covers dependencies types. It mentions the prerequisite but does not detail parameters like depth or includeExternal, though the schema covers them. For a tool without output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All 4 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by showing usage examples for scope and name, and explaining dependency types, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 package/type dependencies' with usage examples and output format. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its scope (type/package) and the type of output (dependency graph).

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 usage examples and states a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_circular_dependencies, but the context is clear.

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