Get import dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it explains important behavior: directory mode aggregates edges (N files -> target) and the graph includes both imports and importers. It doesn't detail result shape or directory-scale caveats, but for a non-mutating read tool it is fairly 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?

Three tight sentences; core behavior is front-loaded, then the special directory-mode behavior, then one practical use case. No repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter read-only graph query with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the caller's main needs: path semantics, edge direction options, directory aggregation, and a motivating scenario. The main gap is that no explicit return structure or size/performance caveat is given.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'what it imports' corresponds to outgoing edges and 'who imports it' to incoming edges, and by clarifying directory mode as an aggregation behavior for the file parameter.

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 identifies the tool as an import-graph query covering both outgoing and incoming edges for a file or directory/package. It is specific about what it does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_references or find_symbol.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('impact analysis before refactoring') and when directory mode applies, which orients the agent toward selecting this tool. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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