get_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns object per import with path/line/type/symbols, supports fuzzy path matching, extracts only static imports, and handles stale index errors. This is comprehensive and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 well-structured, starting with the core action, then providing guidelines, use cases, parameter details, and error handling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and informative.

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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter specifics, and error recovery. It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'path' parameter. The description adds extra context about fuzzy matching and examples (e.g., 'Controllers/FooController.php' vs 'FooController.php'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool lists every import of a single file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from alternatives like grep and sibling tools by emphasizing the pre-built import index, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool over grep, lists specific use cases (understanding dependencies, analyzing structure), and provides error recovery instructions (call index_project then retry). This gives clear guidance on when and how to use it.

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