relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavior: pagination and inclusion of unresolved local targets. But it omits whether this is a read-only query, whether results are cached, and how results are ordered, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a 6-param 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core semantics and the direction contract come first, and pagination is mentioned last. No wasted sentences, though it is dense enough that a beginner might miss the kind/path semantics.

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 values need not be described, which the description correctly does not attempt. Still, for a 6-parameter query tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, key params (kind, path, token_budget) and the relationship to sibling tools are left unexplained, making it only minimally sufficient.

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 all six params are undocumented by the schema. The description explains direction values (in/out) and implies pagination via limit/offset, but leaves kind, path, and token_budget completely undefined, compensating for only a fraction of the gap.

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 resource class (code/config/schema dependencies) and even defines the source/target consumption semantics, which is more than a restatement. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'dependencies' or 'references', so an agent cannot tell which of the overlapping relationship tools to pick from the text alone.

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 direction=in/out wording implies a usage pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (dependencies, references, module_graph). The agent must infer the routing decision.

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