related_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that results come from the call graph and covers both outgoing and incoming usage, but it does not clarify limitations such as direct versus transitive relationships or freshness.

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 wasted text. It is appropriately brief for a simple query tool, though the verb "Project" is slightly awkward.

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 not be explained in the description. However, for a one-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition omits essential parameter formatting and usage guidance.

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 sole parameter is undocumented in the schema at 0% coverage, and the description only implies it is a class name. It does not specify whether the name should be fully qualified, simple, case-sensitive, or otherwise formatted.

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 gives a specific relationship query: it returns the classes a given class uses and the classes that use it, sourced from the call graph. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as read_class or trace_matrix.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_class, search_code, or trace_matrix. The intended use for dependency or reverse-usage analysis is only implied.

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