dependency_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. The description only mentions the action but no behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary details. It front-loads the purpose but is too brief to be minimally viable. Could be longer to cover parameters and usage.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. The agent cannot infer return format, error conditions, or the exact behavior of depth. For a tool with 2 parameters, more detail is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'depth' via 'up to N levels deep' but does not explain the default value or the meaning of depth. The required file_path parameter is not elaborated beyond its name.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the import dependency tree for a file', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (import dependency tree). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_code and find_callers by focusing on dependency tree visualization.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description lacks context for when a dependency tree is appropriate compared to other code analysis tools, and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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