get_attribute_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the return structure ('flat array'), the best-effort nature of the 'name' field, which component types resolve vs. null, and the underlying Dataverse function. It does not mention permissions or confirm it is read-only, but the read-oriented language ('List', 'Returns') strongly implies safety.

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?

Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it lists, when to use it, what it returns, and how it's implemented. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and there is zero fluff.

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 lacking annotations and an output schema, the description provides a complete picture for a read-only listing tool: the return type, field names, name resolution behavior, error-triggered usage, and backing function. The two parameters are fully defined by the schema, so nothing important is left ambiguous.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('Logical name of the entity' and 'Logical name of the column'). The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List CRM components ... that reference a given attribute.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_attribute and other attribute-related operations, and the scope is precise.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this when delete_attribute fails with error 0x8004f01f, or proactively before any destructive change.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, and even references the destructive sibling.

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