get_dependency_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the default return is 'Agent-friendly task snapshots' and that verbose=true returns 'raw node and edge data,' which is useful behavioral information beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error behavior, side effects, or permissions, though the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation.

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, well-structured sentence pair. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key behavioral detail (default vs verbose output) in a second sentence. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does, how to call it, and what to expect in the response. It explains the return format distinction, which is especially important without an output schema. It could be improved by briefly defining 'dependency planning view' or noting what list_dependency_views is for, but it is sufficiently complete for the intended use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that projectId and viewId are used to locate the view, and it specifically describes the effect of the verbose parameter, which is not self-evident from the schema. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names and types, although it does not detail constraints or default values beyond what the schema shows.

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 begins with 'Get a dependency planning view by project ID and view ID,' stating a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the two identifying parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_dependency_views or update_dependency_view by focusing on fetching a single view with a specific format.

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 usage context by explaining the default output and the verbose flag, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_dependency_views or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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