get_file_dependents

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 by structured data. The description contributes only the scope detail that edges are file-level and incoming; it says nothing about truncation behavior despite a max_results parameter.

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 the core answer first and the parenthetical clarifying edge direction second. No words are wasted and there is no preamble.

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 simple read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description identifies the return set adequately despite the absence of an output schema. It stops short of noting ordering, truncation, or empty-result behavior, which is a minor residual gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters (project, file_path, max_results) are already documented in the schema, including the '0 = unlimited' default. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or defaulting detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states the returned resource and its direction precisely: 'Files that import this file (incoming file-level import edges).' That distinguishes it in spirit from the outgoing-edge sibling get_file_dependencies and the symbol-level get_dependents, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 mention of prerequisites such as the file being indexed, and no routing to the obvious alternatives (get_file_dependencies for outgoing edges, get_dependents for symbol-level callers). An agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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