kage_dependency_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only query but does not disclose potential performance impacts for large graphs, authentication requirements, or the nature of the 'source-derived code graph'. The description is adequate but could provide more safety context.

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 consists of two short, informative sentences with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the function and output types well enough but omits details about graph semantics, error conditions, and prerequisites for project_dir. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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 67% (from and to have descriptions, project_dir lacks one). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. It fails to clarify the purpose of project_dir or the expected format of file paths, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 finds how two files are connected in Kage's source-derived code graph, with specific mention of dependency direction, reverse impact, or undirected connection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other Kage operations.

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 understanding file dependencies but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, such as when alternatives like kage_context or kage_risk would be more appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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