vunit_test_dependencies

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

Annotations already signal read-only behavior; the description adds useful non-obvious details: no compilation occurs, no simulator is needed, and VUnit built-in files are summarized as a count rather than fully enumerated. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the returned data and its ordering/grouping, and the second gives the key no-side-effect constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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 single-parameter, read-only dependency query, the description plus schema fully covers what is returned, how it is grouped/ordered, and the fact that no compile or simulator is required. The output schema also exists, so return-value documentation beyond this is not necessary.

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 description says 'one test case' but does not explain how test_name selects it or how wildcard patterns behave. The input schema's test_name description already covers full names, wildcards, and ambiguous matches, so the main description provides only marginal semantic addition.

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 states a precise verb and resource: returning the ordered source-file dependency list for one test case, grouped by library in compile order. It also clearly separates this from compile/run tools by noting it does not compile and needs no simulator.

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 description frames this as a lightweight dependency/elaboration inspection tool and explicitly states no compile or simulator is required, which helps the agent choose it for static dependency questions. It does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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