who_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one meaningful trait — the results are 'direct dependents' only, implying no transitive closure — but says nothing about read-only semantics (obvious for a query), result limits, or ordering.

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?

One tight sentence with the subject and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though terseness shades into under-specification rather than maximal usefulness.

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 must stand alone; it adequately conveys the return payload (importing files) and the direct-only scope, but omits any guidance on when to prefer it over the related reference/impact 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already defines the repo-relative input. The description adds no format, default, or resolution semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific resource and result: 'Files that import a given module — its direct dependents.' An agent immediately knows what it gets back. It does not name the closely related siblings (find_references, analyze_impact) to distinguish itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as find_references or analyze_impact, which appear to overlap in this namespace. Usage can only be inferred from the one-line purpose.

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