effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result (declared vs. reachable effects, failure types, library primitives at the leaves). However, it says nothing about whether this is a pure read, its cost on large graphs, caching, or error 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the subject (the effect/failure graph) and lists its contents without padding. It is long but every clause contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys the conceptual return contents reasonably. It still omits the practical essentials: how the graph is represented, whether absence of effects is signaled, and how this differs from sibling lookup tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'the qualified name'. The phrase 'under a definition' loosely ties the parameter to a definition name but adds no format, scoping, or resolution details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 is a verbless noun phrase naming the resource: a transitive effect and failure graph under a definition. The returned content is fairly clear, but it never states the action the tool performs and gives no differentiation from siblings like definition, project_map, or check.

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?

There is no indication of when to reach for this tool, what kinds of questions it answers, or how it relates to alternatives such as definition or project_map. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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