yaaif_agent_spec_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Return' signals a read operation and the sentence identifies the graph's components. However, it does not mention prerequisites, failure modes, output shape, or whether the graph is computed on demand, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action, resource, and purpose, then lists the graph contents. There is no filler and no repetition of schema information.

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?

For one required parameter, the description is close to adequate, but because there is no output schema and no annotations it should say more about the returned graph structure and prerequisites. The listed components (requirements, slots, bound objects, evidence) offer a sketch, not a complete contract.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions spec_id, its format, or how it selects the scenario. The parameter name is inferable from the tool name, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Scenario dependency graph'), and gives the analytic purpose ('change-impact analysis'). It also lists the graph's contents, which helps separate it from the broader family of spec tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with yaaif_agent_spec_release_dependencies.

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 phrase 'for change-impact analysis' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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