get_import_graph

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, any performance implications of depth, or required permissions. The agent has no information about side effects or limitations.

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 concise sentences effectively front-load the action ('Get dependencies and dependents') and add context ('Shows composition patterns'). No wasted words.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It lacks details on parameter constraints, return format, and edge cases, making it hard for an agent to 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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (component_name, direction, depth). The agent must infer what values to use, especially for direction and depth, without any guidance.

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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves dependencies and dependents for a component, distinguishing it from siblings like get_component_details (which gives broader details) and get_component_usage_example (which shows usage patterns). It mentions composition and page usage, adding specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only states what it does, not context or alternatives. For example, it doesn't say when to prefer this over get_component_details or search_components.

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