Module dependents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful caveats: results are lexical rather than semantic, and dynamic imports are flagged separately. However, it never clarifies directionality (do dependents mean files that import this module, or its imports?), nor result format, limits, or indexing requirements.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the core purpose and the caveat, with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of strain but every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unaddressed: required repo_id, profile, max_tokens, and the direction of the relationship. An agent could not invoke this reliably without guessing.

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 0% across 5 parameters and the description only addresses two of them (path, module). repo_id is required yet unexplained, and profile and max_tokens are never mentioned, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific resource (lexical import relationships) and scopes it to an indexed path or module, which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like get_repo_map or find_symbols. The verb is implicit ('get' in the name), but the returned concept is clearly identified.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to sibling alternatives such as get_impact_slice or get_symbol_context. The phrase 'for indexed path or module' hints at applicability but does not guide tool selection.

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