get_rdeps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral detail: it excludes the target from results and respects scope, which annotations don't cover. No contradiction.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating target and scope), but it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 deps) and existing annotations, the description covers core functionality but omits return format, scope semantics, and edge cases. It's minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'target' and 'scope' indirectly but doesn't explain their meanings (e.g., scope's default '//...' pattern). Missing parameter-level semantics.

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 finds reverse dependencies (specific verb+resource), and includes crucial nuances: within a scope and excluding the target itself. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deps (forward deps).

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 implies usage through 'within scope' and 'excluding target', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_deps, or when not to use. Sibling names hint at distinction, but no explicit context.

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