ctx_dependents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact return shape, the reverse-dependency behavior, and a key security constraint: path traversal is rejected. It does not discuss potential errors for nonexistent files, but the disclosed behavior is substantial for a read-only lookup tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the operation and output shape, then the use case, then path semantics, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the return format, path rules, usage context, and the relevant sibling alternative, so an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that it must be a project-relative or absolute path outside the project root is rejected. The description mostly restates this schema meaning, adding no significant new parameter-level semantics beyond clarifying the traversal rejection.

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's purpose: it returns inbound dependency edges for a file as JSON with a specific shape, [{source, imported_symbol}]. It also distinguishes itself from the forward-direction sibling ctx_dependencies by explicitly naming the reverse direction.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to find every consumer of a file before changing or removing it.' It also names the alternative for the forward direction, ctx_dependencies, giving clear routing guidance for an agent.

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