ast_deps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the supported-language list and the reverse-lookup behavior, but says nothing about output shape or performance characteristics, so it clears the (lower) annotated bar without excelling.

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 tight sentences plus a minimal example, with the core purpose front-loaded and the reverse hint placed before the example. Nothing is padded, though the language list is somewhat enumerative.

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, three-parameter tool the description is largely adequate, but with no output schema it still omits any indication of the return format (flat list vs. grouped by file) and does not disambiguate from the adjacent ast_imports 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 schema already documents path, lang, and reverse. The description's mention of reverse=true and the path example merely restate schema content, adding no format or semantic detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the 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?

States a specific verb (Extract) and resource (import/dependency statements from source files) and enumerates the supported languages, so the scope is concrete. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ast_imports tool, which appears to cover overlapping ground, leaving the agent to guess which to pick.

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 explains the reverse=true mode ('find what imports a file'), which is useful conditional guidance, and supplies a call example. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus ast_imports or ast_refs, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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