project_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the graph is derived from cross-project binds_to/uses_type/inherits edges and that edges are weighted, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not detail output formatting, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and a helpful example question. Each sentence adds relevant information without unnecessary filler.

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?

The description explains what the graph contains, how it is derived, and gives an example use case. It lacks explicit output-format details, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear high-level return semantics.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description only reiterates the optional project filter without adding new semantics, keeping this at the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as providing a project dependency graph, specifying what it contains and giving a concrete example question it answers. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on stats, impact, steps, scenarios, endpoints, and tags.

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 provides clear use context: it answers dependency-related questions like 'what depends on the Party project?' and mentions the optional project filter. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the intended use case is evident from the description.

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