get_dependents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: built from pre-built reverse-import index, returns list of file paths, fuzzy matching, only static imports considered, dynamic imports filtered. Also mentions error handling and recovery.

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 brief and front-loaded with purpose. The three sentences contain no fluff: each sentence adds essential information about functionality, usage scenarios, and error recovery. Perfectly concise.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all aspects: purpose, mechanism (reverse-import index), usage guidelines, parameter behavior (fuzzy matching), limitations (static imports only), and error handling. It is self-contained and complete.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, with a description in the schema itself. The tool description adds clarification on fuzzy matching (exact paths, fragments, bare filenames) but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema. A score of 4 reflects effective but not exceptional additional value.

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 starts with 'Reverse dependency lookup — find every file that imports a given file,' clearly stating the verb (find/reverse lookup) and resource (files importing a given file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_dependencies' and 'grep-based find-callers'.

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 states when to use: 'impact analysis before changing a module; finding consumers of a library; detecting file importance.' Also advises preferring over grep-based alternatives and provides recovery steps for errors: 'On Index not found / stale error, call index_project, then retry.'

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