cross_file_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals nothing about return format (graph? list?), circular dependency handling, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, or side effects. 'Trace' implies read-only but this is never confirmed.

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?

Extremely concise at 6 words with front-loaded action verb. No filler words, though potentially too terse for the complexity of dependency tracing given lack of supporting annotations or output schema.

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?

Severely inadequate for a 3-parameter dependency analysis tool with no output schema. Missing: return value structure, handling of missing files, cycle detection behavior, and performance characteristics (critical for depth-limited graph traversal).

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions 'entry points' which maps to the entryPoints parameter, but adds no semantic clarification for 'depth' (recursion limits?) or 'includeTypes' (TypeScript-specific?) beyond schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verb 'Trace' with resource 'import/export links' and scope 'from entry points', making the core function identifiable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_impact or analyze_file that might also examine code relationships.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_impact for change analysis, search for finding references). The phrase 'from entry points' hints at intended usage but lacks prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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