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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context of returning file dependencies but does not disclose any edge cases, performance characteristics, or limitations. Since annotations handle the main safety traits, this 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter), has an output schema, and is covered by read-only/idempotent annotations. The description provides the intended use case and the schema fully documents the parameter. Together, this gives a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics, including a detailed description of file_path with resolution rules (exact match first, suffix fallback). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail beyond calling it a 'specific file,' which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'What a specific file imports/depends on.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_callees/get_callers by focusing on file-level dependencies rather than function-level relationships. The context ('understand a file's place in the codebase') further clarifies intent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'to understand a file's place in the codebase before assuming what's available to it, or before moving/refactoring it.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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