get_module_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the use of the module_files junction and aggregation, but it does not provide additional behavioral details such as potential side effects (none expected) or response size limits.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains the mechanism and output. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states what it does, how it works, and what it returns. It could be slightly more precise about the scope (e.g., whether it works for all modules or only those with dependencies), but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (module_id), so the description need not add much. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is clear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get cross-module dependencies' and explains the mechanism ('via module_files junction') and output ('aggregated counts per target module'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_module_files or get_module_functions by focusing on cross-module interactions.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, it would be helpful to know, for example, to use this for dependency analysis rather than for listing module contents.

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