editor_get_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not state safety, error behavior, return format, or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether dependencies are resolved transitively or only direct.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned dependency list contains (e.g., array of paths, resource IDs). It also doesn't mention failure conditions or editor-state requirements. The tool's behavior remains ambiguous despite its simplicity.

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 schema describes 'path' only as a string; the description adds 'for a file,' giving minimal context. However, it does not specify whether the path should be absolute, relative, project-relative, or a resource path, and there is no parameter-level description.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resource dependencies') and names the target ('a file'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'scene_dependency_graph', which likely overlaps in functionality.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'scene_dependency_graph'.

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