project_dependencies

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 disclose the shape of the result (forward imports categorized into four buckets, plus reverse importers) and the language coverage. It does not state that the operation is read-only and non-mutating, whether analysis recurses or is single-file only, or anything about cost on large repos. Those omissions are partly mitigated by an output schema existing, but the read-only/mutation profile is left to inference.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the output precisely, the second bounds language support. No filler, and the core output definition is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only single-file analysis tool with a fully described 3-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly and to interpret results. The remaining gap is the absence of any read-only/safety statement given zero annotations, plus no guidance against confusing it with the other project_* tools.

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 100%, so path, format, and the required file_path are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, such as how file_path is resolved against root or what the json envelope contains. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and scope: the imports of one named file, broken out into local, standard-library, external and unresolved, plus the reverse set of files that import it. It also lists supported languages, which sharpens expectations. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as project_map or project_overview, but the output described is distinctive enough to separate it.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus project_map, project_overview, or search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only inferable from what the output is described as containing. For an agent facing several project-analysis siblings, that inference burden is meaningful.

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