get_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Find dependencies' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose first, followed by parameter and return details. It uses a structured format with clear sections, making it easy to parse, though the return statement could be more precise.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed return value explanation, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the parameters: 'project: Project name' and 'file_path: Path to the file.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by clarifying what each parameter represents, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Find dependencies of a file.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('dependencies of a file'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_project' or 'find_usage', which might also involve dependency analysis, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the project must be registered first, and does not mention any sibling tools as alternatives for dependency-related tasks, leaving usage unclear.

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