get_repo_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses re data source ('from package manifests, not code analysis'), default behavior ('Without this, returns entire graph'), and the meaning of direction options. This provides useful context, though it doesn't mention error handling or pagination.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a usage sentence, a data source note, and then an Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary length.

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 output schema exists and the tool has only two optional params, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, data source, parameter semantics, and defaults. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 fully explains both parameters: repo_name as a filter with default behavior, and direction with its valid values and their meanings. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying semantics.

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 'Get' and resource 'cross-repo dependency graph' followed by a clear explanation of what it shows. The mention of package manifests (go.mod, package.json) and blast radius distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module_facts and list_modules.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to understand the blast radius of changes across repositories,' providing a clear context. It also notes that data comes from manifests rather than code analysis, which implies a limitation but doesn't name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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