reverse_deps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find all files that import a given file' without stating side effects, safety (read-only), output format, or error behavior. The agent cannot infer whether the tool modifies anything or what happens with missing files, so transparency is minimal.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite minimal. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not clarify return values or edge cases (e.g., handling of missing modules). While the core function is clear, the lack of output format guidance and behavioral context leaves some gaps, making it 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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters like 'exclude' or 'tsconfig', but since the schema is complete, this is acceptable. The description's simplicity does not detract from parameter understanding.

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 'Find all files that import a given file' uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('files that import'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'forward_deps' which would find files imported by a given file. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied 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?

The description implies the use case (finding dependents of a file) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'forward_deps' or mention scenarios where this tool should be preferred. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, making the usage somewhat implied rather than explicitly stated.

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