dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the useful bidirectional nuance (what it imports AND what imports it), but says nothing about max_tokens-driven truncation or the workspace default — behaviorally relevant for a tool that can return unbounded edges.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the bidirectional scope is stated up front. It is efficient, though it leaves little room for the clarifications the tool actually needs.

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, no parameter descriptions for two of three inputs, and no annotations beyond the safety flags, the description is too thin. It should say whether path is absolute or workspace-relative and what the response shape (edges, list of paths) looks like.

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 only 33%: workspace is documented in-schema while path and max_tokens are bare. The description does not clarify that path is a file (vs directory) or that max_tokens truncates output, so a third of the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 verb+resource pair — shows both outgoing imports and incoming importers of a file — which disambiguates the bare name 'dependencies' from package-dependency meaning. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like cross_references or impact_analysis, which likely return overlapping information.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many related siblings (cross_references, impact_analysis, call_graph). The agent must infer the choice entirely 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.