get_assembly_dependency_graph

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

The description only mentions output format ('nodes and edges') but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the graph is complete or filtered, what nodes and edges represent (e.g., assemblies and dependencies), or if any side effects occur. With no annotations, this gap is critical for an AI agent's decision-making.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or excess. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise for a simple getter tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the output (nodes and edges) but lacks context on the graph model, potential size, performance implications, or how the data should be interpreted. This is sufficient for basic use but incomplete for nuanced selection.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond the tool name, which is acceptable given the trivial parameter set.

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 that the tool retrieves a dependency graph for assembly definitions, specifying 'nodes and edges' which indicates the output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_assemblies' by focusing on graph structure, though could more explicitly define what 'assembly definition' refers to (e.g., Unity asmdef files).

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 such as 'list_assemblies' or 'get_assembly_for_path'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this graph is preferred over flat lists.

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