forward_deps

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

No annotations are provided, and the single-sentence description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether dependencies are direct or transitive, how tsconfig and exclude patterns influence results, or any side effects. It only states the basic read operation.

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 succinct sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the main action. However, it borders on under-specification for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to specify the return format or whether the results are direct imports or all transitive dependencies. The existence of several sibling tools further highlights the missing contextual guidance needed for correct tool selection and invocation.

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% with all 5 parameters documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'all files that a given file imports', clearly conveying the forward dependency direction. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like reverse_deps or dep_graph, leaving differentiation to the tool name.

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 provided on when to use forward_deps versus alternatives such as reverse_deps, dep_graph, or circular_deps. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions.

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