get_symbol_dependencies

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: edges are matched by simple name with no import resolution, common names can cause false positives, and class instantiation links to the class rather than __init__. This meaningfully prepares the agent for surprising results.

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, with the core action first, followed by essential caveats and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, matching behavior, limitations, and both parameters, making it complete for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: symbol_name accepts a qualified name or dotted suffix, and path specifies the repository root with a default. This is exactly the semantic meaning the schema lacks.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List a symbol's direct callers and callees across the repository.' It clearly differentiates this from siblings like get_symbol_signature (signature lookup) and pack_task_context (task context packaging).

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you need direct callers/callees across the repository. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and the caveats about simple-name matching help set expectations.

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