get_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No API call needed' and the reindex requirement, but does not describe the return format, performance characteristics, or whether it is read-only. For a non-destructive tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential usage context, demonstrating efficient communication.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points: purpose, prerequisite, and network behavior. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of file paths), which would be beneficial but is not critical given the simplicity. Overall, it is mostly 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%, so the schema already explains both parameters ('file' and 'depth'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and describes the resource ('dependencies'). It clearly states it shows the dependency chain from a given file outward, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_dependents' that shows dependents.

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 specifies a prerequisite ('Requires a prior reindex') and clarifies that no API call is needed, implying it's a fast, local operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings but provides context for correct usage.

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