get_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is read-only ('return what a file imports...'), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool scans the whole repo, handles dynamic imports, or has performance implications. Given the lack of annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is stated first, and the use case is added compactly. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, but it lacks details on repo_root semantics, return format, and any edge cases (like missing files). The complexity is moderate, so this is incomplete but not severely.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The path parameter is obvious from the tool name, but repo_root is undocumented. With no parameter info, a lower score might be expected, but the description's mention of 'file' implies path usage; still, the gap is significant.

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 returns a file's imports and reverse dependencies, with a specific purpose (understanding blast radius). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_code and get_file_summary by focusing on dependency relationships.

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 ('to understand blast radius before changing a file') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_relevant_context for broader context. The context signals show siblings, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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