repomind_get_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only analysis operation (no side effects) and specifies supported languages and output type (directed dependency graph). It lacks details on scalability or edge cases, but for a simple analysis tool it is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and includes essential qualifiers (languages, file/directory, output type). Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it specifies the input path, languages analyzed, and the output graph. It could mention return format or limitations, but these are less critical for a read-only analysis tool in the context of sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter targetPath, which already defines it as an absolute path to a file or directory. The description adds no new information about parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool analyzes imports in JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python files and builds a directed dependency graph. It uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on dependency graph construction rather than scanning, diagramming, or impact analysis.

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 tool should be used to analyze dependencies in a given path, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like repomind_scan_workspace or repomind_impact_analysis. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative usage context.

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