module_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what the output represents. It does not say whether this is a read-only query (implied), how aggregation collapses edges, or what happens with sparse graphs.

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 with no filler; the resource and aggregation rule come first. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity costs it parameter and usage detail.

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 exists so return values need not be documented, and complexity is low. However, with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the unmentioned min_edges parameter and undefined depth semantics leave the definition short of what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'depth' via 'aggregated at the given path depth' but never defines depth values, and min_edges is not mentioned at all, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb-like concept (directory-level import graph) plus scope: modules depending on modules, aggregated at a path depth. It is clearly readable, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like dependencies or relationships.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of dependencies, relationships, or program_map-type tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the phrase 'import graph'.

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