related_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral content by revealing that results combine static dependency edges (imports/calls) with historical co-change data — a non-obvious trait. It does not disclose depth, recursion, result limits, or whether the historical signal requires repository history, leaving key behaviors unknown.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary signal and no waste. The trailing phrase 'historically change with it' is slightly vague but earns its place by signaling the second data source.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core concept is conveyed. However, for a tool sitting in a cluster of overlapping relationship tools, the absence of differentiation and parameter-format detail leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently over alternatives.

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%, so the single `path` parameter is undocumented structurally. The description implies `path` identifies the source file whose relatives are computed, but never specifies absolute vs. relative form, whether directories are accepted, or how paths are interpreted.

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 a specific resource (files linked to `path`) and two retrieval signals: imports/calls and historical co-change. This distinguishes it from a generic search, though it stops short of naming how it differs from the closely related `callers`, `callees`, or `impact` siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than `callers`, `callees`, or `impact`, which all return related-file information from different angles. The agent must infer the selection rule from the one-line description alone.

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