get_dependents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It adds that only direct references are returned (a key constraint). However, it does not mention performance, side effects, permission requirements, or return format. The description is adequate but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Incoming deps') and scope ('direct references only'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic function but lacks guidance on parameter usage, return format, and behavioral nuances. Considering the tool's simplicity, it is marginally adequate.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 80% description coverage (4 of 5 have descriptions). The required parameter 'name' lacks a description, and the tool description does not clarify its format (e.g., symbol name vs. path). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Incoming deps: who calls/uses X, direct references only' clearly states the tool finds incoming dependencies (callers/users) for a given symbol, and specifies it returns only direct references. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_dependencies' (outgoing) and 'get_call_chain' (recursive).

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 the tool is used to find who calls or uses a symbol, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like 'find_dead_code' or 'get_change_impact'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given.

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