get_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the edge direction semantics (dependent→referenced) and that the return includes a Mermaid diagram string, which is genuine behavioral detail. It says nothing about permissions, cost, or failure modes, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return shape trailing. Nothing is wasted, though it is dense enough that the return description is somewhat compressed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the source view (all_dependencies), the scoping/filtering, and the return format (edges plus Mermaid string). Only permission and error behavior are omitted, which is minor for a read-style graph tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that name/type are optional filters but adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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: "Build an object-dependency graph for a schema," and specifies the output (directed dependent→referenced edges plus a Mermaid string). It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_dependencies or get_fk_graph, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 notes the graph is scoped to a schema and can be narrowed by name/type, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions the alternatives (list_dependencies, get_fk_graph) that an agent would weigh it against. Usage must be inferred.

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