orphans_and_hubs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the exclusion rules that shape the orphan list and hints at heuristic unreliability ('with caveats'). However, it never says what those caveats are, whether the two lists are ranked/scored, or what ordering the hub ranking uses – substantial gaps for a heuristic analysis tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary output and packs the exclusion criteria inline. The nested parenthetical is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema is present, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers what the tool finds and what it filters out. The undisclosed 'caveats' and the missing handling of the limit parameter leave real ambiguity about what an agent will actually receive.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists in the schema, which sets the baseline at 4 regardless of 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?

Names two concrete resources – dead-code candidates and most-depended-on files – with the defining criteria (files nothing imports, excluding entry points/tests/__init__.py/configs) and a metric for hubs (direct importers / transitive dependents). It is clearly not project_map or find_cycles, though the hub half overlaps conceptually with the 'dependents' sibling without being explicitly differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. Given siblings like dependents, impact, and symbol_users, an agent gets no signal about when to pick this combined report over the narrower tools. The 'with caveats' parenthetical flags uncertainty without resolving it.

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