dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden. It does disclose real behavioral facts that structured fields do not: results are scoped to project-internal imports only, depth is transitive, and unresolved/dynamic imports are always listed separately. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how `limit` truncates or reorders results, or what happens when the path does not exist — gaps that matter for a graph-traversal tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the one caveat that changes how results should be read. Nothing is wasted and the emphasis on UNRESOLVED/DYNAMIC imports signals that those entries are exceptional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. Still, a zero-coverage three-parameter graph tool needs at least a note on `limit` semantics and the path/module input form; the description stops short of that while adequately covering the transitive-import behaviour.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains `depth` (transitive expansion) and implicitly `path_or_module`; `limit` is never mentioned, and the path-vs-module ambiguity in `path_or_module` is left unresolved.

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 names a specific question the tool answers: what a given file imports from inside the project, transitively to `depth`, plus unresolved and dynamic imports. That is concrete and materially narrower than a generic graph query. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the obvious inverse sibling `dependents`, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Use is implied by the framing ('What does this file import...'), so an agent can infer the direction of the lookup. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to `dependents`, `impact`, or `find_cycles`, which are the near-neighbour alternatives an agent would weigh.

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