dependents

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the output contains (grouping, import lines, names, type-only/lazy/conditional flags), which is genuinely informative, but says nothing about whether the whole project is scanned, how unresolved or dynamic imports are handled, or the cost of deep traversal.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then the output shape, then input formats — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The parenthetical path examples are dense but earn their place; slightly tighter phrasing could avoid the line-broken run-on.

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 detail is not strictly required, yet the description spends most of its words on output shape while leaving `limit` and traversal cost unaddressed. For a three-parameter graph-traversal tool with no annotations, the missing coverage of pagination and scan scope is a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does for the required parameter: it enumerates accepted forms (project-relative path, extensionless JS path, dotted Python module) with concrete examples. `depth` is clarified via 'Depth 1 = direct importers only', but `limit` (default 100) is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource question ('Who imports this file?') and specifies the shape of the answer (transitive importers grouped by depth, with import lines, imported names, and flags). That is enough to distinguish it from the reverse-direction sibling `dependencies`, but it never names that sibling or `impact`, leaving the agent to infer the inverse relationship.

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?

Useful operational guidance is embedded: accepted `path_or_module` formats and 'Depth 1 = direct importers only', which tells the agent how to get direct-only results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `dependencies`, `impact`, or `project_map`, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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