imports_deps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about output: it lists imports and flags unresolved internal edges, which the annotations do not provide. No contradictions.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant information and is efficiently front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. However, the description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., project indexing), the meaning of 'unresolved internal edges', or how projectId/projectRef affect behavior. It covers basic purpose but lacks operational context for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'file' parameter by mentioning 'a file's indexed imports', but projectId and projectRef are not described at all. Their optionality and effect remain unclear, leaving significant gaps.

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 lists a file's indexed imports and flags unresolved internal edges, using specific verbs ('list' and 'flag') and a specific resource (file's direct dependencies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like imports_cycles, imports_hotspots, and imports_impact by focusing on direct dependencies and internal edges.

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 usage for analyzing direct dependencies and internal edges within a project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., imports_cycles for cycles). No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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