deps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does disclose the output's compactness and the direct/reverse dependency scope, but it does not mention error handling (e.g., what if the file is not indexed), whether the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects. This is partial disclosure, not complete.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the action and object, the second provides a concise usage directive. No redundant wording or filler.

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 is simple (only 1 parameter, no output schema), but the description omits the exact return format (only says 'compact') and does not address edge cases like missing index or invalid target. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided more detail about the response structure to be truly complete.

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% for the sole parameter 'target,' which is already well described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('compact direct and reverse dependency information for one indexed file'). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'broader related search,' making its purpose distinct from tools like 'search'.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this for exact dependency tracing instead of broader related search.' This provides both a clear use case and an alternative, giving an agent strong guidance on selecting it over rivals.

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