dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the output content (imports, dependents) but says nothing about mutation, permissions, side effects, or rate limits. For a read-oriented analysis tool this is less critical, but with zero annotations the description should confirm it's a read-only inspection operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (file-level imports, external packages, importers, dependents). It wastes no words but could be slightly more explicit about its scope versus sibling tools.

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 has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and an undocumented 'path' parameter, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely expects a valid file path and may have behavioral nuances (e.g., only analyzing indexed files). It leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites.

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?

With only one parameter ('path'), the schema description coverage is 0% and the parameter has no description in its schema. The tool description does not explain what 'path' should point to—a file, directory, or repo-relative path—nor does it indicate whether the path is required to be within the repository. This gap could easily cause invocation errors.

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 this is a dependency analysis tool covering file-level imports, external packages, importers, and transitive dependents. It's a specific verb-less noun phrase but conveys the resource (dependencies) well. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'relationships' tool, which could cover similar dependency territory.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description lists what the tool returns but provides no context on when to choose this over 'relationships', 'module_graph', or 'impact'. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings alone.

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