Get service dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and a reference link but provides no additional behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise two-line statement with the purpose and endpoint, followed by a reference link. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant content. Slightly more detail about the dependency semantics could be added, but overall it is efficient.

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 read-only GET with optional query parameters, the description plus annotations and schema cover what an agent needs: the endpoint, parameter behavior, and safety. The reference link offers deeper details if needed. Missing a definition of 'service dependency', but not critical for invocation.

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 description covers 100% of parameters, including the 'query' object's behavior (arrays comma-joined, documented names serviceId/dependentServiceId, explicit pagination). The tool description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'service dependencies', and provides the exact HTTP endpoint. While the name is self-explanatory, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_services or get_a_service, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrast with related tools like xmatters_get_services. The agent must infer that this tool is for fetching dependency relationships.

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