get_package_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the source (manifest + lock) and output type (nodes/edges), implying a read operation. However, it lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or whether the graph is recursive, which would be valuable for a tool returning a graph structure.

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 front-loads the core action and output. Every word is necessary, and no redundant information is present.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal. It does not explain the structure of nodes/edges, whether dependencies are transitive, or how to interpret the output. No output schema exists to supplement this, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct usage.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters.

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 tool retrieves a package dependency graph from manifest and lock files. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('package dependency graph'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_packages' and 'get_assembly_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 implies the tool is for retrieving dependency graphs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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