roslyn:dependency_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only ('visualize'), returns structured data or diagram syntax, and detects circular dependencies. While it could mention prerequisites like the solution must be loaded, the description provides adequate transparency for the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output details and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, output format, and use cases. Missing prerequisites (e.g., solution must be loaded) is a minor gap, but overall sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the default format ('json') and clarifying that JSON returns 'structured data', which goes beyond the schema's description. This extra detail helps an agent understand the parameter's effect.

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 the action (visualize as a graph), the resource (project dependencies), and what it provides (shows references, detects circular dependencies). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_circular_dependencies which likely return a list, and get_project_structure which gives structure, not graph visualization.

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 lists use cases (understand architecture, find circular dependencies, plan refactoring) which imply when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternative siblings. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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