GetDependencyGraph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output structure ('nodes and edges') and the general nature of the operation, but it does not describe traversal semantics, filtering behavior, or side effects. For a read-only graph retrieval tool this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then clarifies the return format, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is minimal but the schema covers the parameters well. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent might benefit from additional context about how the graph is structured, how the optional name filter changes the output, or when this tool is preferable to related value-listing tools. The core information is present, but there are clear gaps in guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as how name, depth, direction, and pattern interact, which is acceptable because the schema already provides that detail.

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 dependency graph from the Observable runtime and specifies the return shape as nodes and edges. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, but the object of the action is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to understand how values depend on each other. However, it does not mention alternatives such as ListValues or GetValueMetadata, nor does it state when not to use this tool, leaving the comparison to siblings implicit.

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