Get Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the direction limitation and, crucially, that complete=false signals partial metadata extraction rather than authoritative lineage. That caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral transparency structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the direction constraint. No wasted words; the completeness caveat is appropriately placed last. Minor awkwardness in 'with evidence' but overall tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the complete=false caveat adds valuable context. Still, for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter semantics unexplained, making it only adequately complete.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description bears full responsibility. It only touches 'direction' (DOWNSTREAM/BOTH unsupported) and leaves max_depth bounds, environment, space, object_type, and technical_name format entirely undocumented in prose. With low coverage and many params, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: infer bounded upstream CSN dependencies, with the qualifier 'with evidence'. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_object or list_objects, though the CSN/lineage domain jargon may not be self-evident. Clear but minimal sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a useful when-not: DOWNSTREAM/BOTH are unsupported, which routes the agent away from an invalid direction. However, it gives no positive when-to-use guidance or explicit alternative (e.g., when to choose this over get_object). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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