dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the graph's directionality—incoming and outgoing imports—but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or how the graph is returned.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The dash construction front-loads the core concept and then clarifies it concisely.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a usable high-level contract: a dependency graph of a file in both directions. However, it lacks usage context, return-format details, and edge-case or exclusion information, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage ('Chemin du fichier'). The description reinforces that the path refers to a file ('d'un fichier') but adds no new validation or format details; this meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies a concrete analysis resource: a file dependency graph, and clarifies both directions ('qui il importe et qui l'importe'). It makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as 'graph' or 'impact'.

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 choose dependencies over sibling tools like graph, impact, or search. The description states only what the tool produces, leaving the agent to infer use cases and alternatives.

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