syms_dependents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose, omitting details about side effects, permissions, performance, or error handling. There is no mention of whether the tool is read-only or what happens with parameters like 'transitive' or 'root'.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise, but it is too brief to be fully informative. While it avoids redundancy, it could include more useful content without becoming verbose.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how results are returned, or how to interpret them. The presence of sibling tools implies a complex environment, but this description lacks the detail needed for effective use.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the effect of 'transitive' or the behavior when 'root' is omitted.

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 'List files that depend on (import from) a given file', which is a specific verb and resource. It indicates the direction of dependencies (reverse), distinguishing it from siblings like 'syms_deps' which likely list forward dependencies, though this is not explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'syms_deps', 'syms_impact', or 'syms_imports'. The description lacks context about the intended use case or conditions that would make this tool preferable.

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