Get a file's direct import relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the one-hop, bidirectional nature, but it omits important behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., a previously saved graph), error behavior when the file is not found, or return format.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the one-hop constraint, earning the maximum score for conciseness.

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?

The description adequately conveys the core return value (incoming and outgoing direct imports), but it is missing important context about the graph_path parameter and prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about result structure would improve completeness, though the tool is relatively simple.

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 the schema already fully documents both file_path and graph_path. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond referring to a 'file', which earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('a file's direct import relationships'), including both directions (what it imports and what imports it). The 'one hop' qualifier clearly differentiates this from transitive dependency tools like impact_analysis.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., find_callers, impact_analysis). The 'directly (one hop)' comment implies scope but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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