get_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, output format, or performance considerations. It only states directionality and provides no additional behavioral context beyond the core purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it may be too terse, missing some useful context that could be added 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the truncation behavior noted in the schema, or provide examples, making it harder for an agent to use effectively.

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 80% with most parameters already described. The description adds context for the required 'name' parameter by implying it refers to the symbol, but does not enhance understanding of other parameters like 'max_results' or 'depth' beyond schema defaults.

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 'outgoing deps of a symbol' and 'what X calls/uses (downstream)', which precisely defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_dependents' (incoming dependencies).

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 use for outgoing dependencies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_call_chain' or 'find_impacted_test_files', nor any conditions or exclusions.

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