trace_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only trace but never confirms non-mutation, doesn't say whether traversal is transitive or single-level, gives no depth/scope limits, and says nothing about output shape for a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the dependency categories. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter trace tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still lacks behavioral detail (transitivity, output format, error behavior on missing files). Some important context is left to inference.

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?

Only one parameter (filePath) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no path format, resolution rules, or root-relative vs absolute details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since 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?

Names a specific verb ('trace') and resource ('dependencies of a file'), and enumerates the dependency directions (incoming, outgoing, external). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_impact or detect_dead_code, which also operate on files.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over analyze_impact, detect_dead_code, or find_symbol. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what kind of question this answers versus its siblings.

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