get_contract_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns 'categorized dependencies with optional circular dependency detection,' but does not disclose performance implications, whether it modifies data, or permission requirements. For a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information, well front-loaded, and 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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it does mention categorization and circular detection. However, it lacks completeness by not clarifying how to specify the contract or the role of the 'path' parameter. For a tool with many optional parameters, more context would be beneficial.

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 description does not mention any parameter details despite the input schema having multiple optional parameters (contract_key, detect_circular, etc.) with zero schema coverage. The schema itself contains parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no additional semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 the verb 'maps' to clearly indicate the action, specifies the resource as 'dependencies for a specific contract', and lists the types of dependencies (inheritance, external calls, library usage). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inherited_contracts or get_derived_contracts.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when understanding what a contract depends on, finding coupling issues, or detecting circular dependencies.' While it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the guidance is clear and actionable, earning a 4.

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