get_dependencies

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns import edges with line numbers and a list of dependent files, and implies a read-only operation. Does not mention rate limits or permissions, but adds value beyond what's given.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds usage context and output. Every sentence is essential and 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?

Has output schema externally, but description explains output contents adequately (import edges, line numbers, dependent files). Covers both forward and reverse dependencies. Missing edge cases or error handling, but sufficient for common 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds little new information about parameters beyond the schema. The path description is identical to schema; response_format is not mentioned in description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it shows imports (internal vs external) and reverse dependencies (who imports it), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_references and trace_call_graph by focusing on import dependencies and blast radius.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to gauge the impact of changing a module', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like trace_call_graph, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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