analyze_dependency_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'return[s]' analysis results, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The output categories are helpful but safety-related behavior remains implicit.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and directly lists the output types. There is no filler or redundant information; every word adds value.

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 tool has moderate complexity and no output schema, but the description lists the main output categories. However, it does not describe the return structure, potential errors, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the view must exist or have edges). It is adequate for basic selection but misses some important context an agent might need.

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 has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what projectId or viewId refer to or how they affect the analysis. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the phrase 'dependency planning view' hints that viewId identifies that view, but the description adds no explicit parameter semantics to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and a clear resource 'dependency planning view', and lists concrete output categories (topological layers, ready tasks, blocked tasks, roots, leaves, isolated tasks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependency_view, which likely just fetches the view without analysis.

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 use when you need analysis results of a dependency view, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_dependency_view or list_dependency_views. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the choice to inference.

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