deps_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what it does vaguely. It does not disclose whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, or handles missing files, which is insufficient for a dependency mapping 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, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without extra fluff.

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?

Despite clear intent, the description lacks specifics on output format, scope of dependency scanning, and the role of project_root. Without annotations or output schema, it leaves significant gaps for an agent to use effectively.

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 description mentions 'imports' and 'reverse deps', which map to file_path and include_reverse, but does not explain project_root. With 0% schema coverage, this partially compensates but misses one parameter's meaning.

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 states the tool maps file dependencies and shows imports with optional reverse deps, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like code_pattern_check or impact_analyze.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where it is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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