get_dependents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only static imports are considered, dynamic imports are filtered, path matching is fuzzy, and returns an array of file paths. This is sufficient transparency for expected behavior.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections (Purpose, Returns, Use this when, Important, Note). Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without unnecessary words.

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 tool's complexity (reverse dependency lookup) and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and parameter details adequately. It might lack performance or error handling notes, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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% with one parameter 'path' having a description. Tool description adds extra context: 'supports exact paths, fragments, or just filenames' and examples like 'models/User.php' or 'User.php', adding value 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 'Get all files that depend on (import) a specific file' and 'Find what other files import this file (reverse dependency lookup),' using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_dependencies' which likely does forward lookup.

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 'Use this when:' section lists three concrete scenarios (understanding impact, finding usages, analyzing importance). It also provides caveats about static imports only and fuzzy matching, guiding appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly compare to similar tools like 'find_references' or 'search_code'.

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