Top-level module dependency map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('quick read') but does not describe the output format, whether it is safe or has side effects, or any constraints like repository requirements or limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It has no filler, but it is under-specified, so it could be more informative. However, for the information it does provide, it is concise.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what the return data looks like, how the 'limit' parameter affects results, or what happens when `repo` is omitted (since no params are required). The tool's complexity is low, but the absence of critical behavioral and parameter details makes the description 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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The `repo` string and `limit` integer are not described at all, and with no parameter details in the schema, the agent cannot infer their role or defaults. The description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 a specific action: aggregates import edges to top-level directories, and gives the purpose of providing a quick architectural read. This differentiates it from sibling tools like who_calls or path_between by focusing on top-level aggregation rather than detailed 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?

The phrase 'quick read on the architecture' implies use when an overview is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. There is no explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling tools, so the usage context is only mildly implied.

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