gograph_dependents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects' and adds non-obvious behavior: 'The MCP server refreshes source analysis before the call.' This provides useful context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes value (purpose, refresh behavior, usage boundaries, return format). It repeats annotation information ('Read-only; no side effects') but not so much that it harms clarity.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and a key behavioral detail about automatic source refresh. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in context.

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% (both 'package' and 'mermaid' have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema—only noting that mermaid=true returns Mermaid flowchart text, which the schema already communicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since structured data carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource 'all packages that import the named package' and explicitly calls itself the inverse of gograph_deps, distinguishing it from the sibling tool. It also differentiates from gograph_callers for function-level queries, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, with a named alternative (gograph_callers) and a concrete use case (before package-level interface change or removal). This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to decide between siblings.

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