ast_deps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the read-only nature of the operation via 'Extract,' names the tool's language coverage, and clarifies the reverse-dependency mode. This goes beyond the raw schema and gives an agent useful expectations about what the tool will do.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying useful information: the core operation, language support, and a concrete invocation example. No filler or redundancy; the description is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 description covers the main invocation path, optional language support, reverse mode, and a representative example, which is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It does not detail output format or error behavior, but no output schema is available and those omissions are not critical for a straightforward extraction tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete path example and language context, but the reverse behavior is already described in the schema, and the lang parameter receives no additional semantic detail. The description therefore provides only modest value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Extract import/dependency statements from source files.' It also lists supported languages and an example path, making the tool's purpose concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool ast_imports, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 gives a practical usage hint with 'Use reverse=true to find what imports a file' and includes an example call. It does not, however, explain when to choose ast_deps over alternatives like ast_imports, ast_refs, or ast_impact, leaving tool-selection guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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