related_files

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (shows graph), what inputs it takes (a file path), and hints at processing (scoring). It does not mention any side effects or performance considerations, but the disclosed behavior is adequate for a read 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every piece of information is relevant. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: a ranked import graph with relevance scores and categories (HIGH VALUE, MEDIUM, LOW). This is complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% for the single parameter 'path', which has a clear description. The tool description adds context ('analyze a file') but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Show ranked import graph for a file'. It specifies the verb 'show', the resource 'import graph', and includes details about what is ranked (imports, importers, tests) and the scoring criteria (relevance). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_usages' or 'call_tree' which likely provide different views.

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 implies usage context: 'to prioritize reading' suggests the tool helps decide what to explore next. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. This is a minor gap.

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