context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the closure is computed from code, follows project-local imports transitively, is budgeted, and is cheaper than reading files. It does not mention return format or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are well conveyed.

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 two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning—purpose, when to use, what it computes, cost efficiency, and refresh advice. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the result contains (file API + imported module surfaces). It lacks explicit detail about return formatting or edge cases (e.g., missing imports), but for an MCP tool definition it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'budgeted block' concept and how depth ('followed transitively') and paths ('files you are about to edit') fit into the closure computation, going beyond the raw schema text.

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 computes a dependency closure: 'the file's own API plus the exact surface of every module it imports, followed transitively through project code.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from generic file-reading tools. It also contrasts itself with 'similarity search,' further clarifying its unique purpose.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this INSTEAD OF reading a file and its dependencies, before you start editing.' It also advises refreshing the result rather than holding it in context. This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool and what it replaces, though sibling tools (surface, verify) are not directly named.

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