get_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is low. The description adds the downstream semantics but says nothing about depth behavior, result volume, or truncation beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core concept leads and the parenthetical gloss clarifies it. It is tight, though arguably too terse for a five-parameter graph tool.

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 graph-traversal tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description leaves return shape and traversal behavior to the schema and omits any routing against the many related dependency tools. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers params, so it is minimally viable but thin.

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 80%, with depth, project, compress and max_results all self-documented in the schema (including the truncation marker). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Outgoing deps of a symbol') and immediately glosses it as 'what X calls/uses (downstream)', which an agent can map to a concrete graph query. The 'outgoing/downstream' framing distinguishes it from the sibling get_dependents (incoming/reverse) without opening either schema.

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 directional framing ('outgoing...downstream') implicitly signals when to reach for this tool versus get_dependents or get_file_dependencies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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