get_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does communicate that the tool analyzes module relationships rather than performing a visible mutation. It does not clarify whether workspace state is changed, what the output graph looks like, or how the optional workspaceRoot influences behavior.

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 states the core operation, the resource, and the key tracked relationships. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential conceptual behavior but omits the return format and the effect or default of workspaceRoot. These details would help an agent call the tool correctly without further inference.

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 fully describes the only parameter, workspaceRoot, as an optional workspace root directory. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so it relies on the schema, which is adequate.

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 and resource: 'Builds a module dependency graph' and names tracked aspects. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by the graph concept, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 described functionality implies it is for module dependency analysis, especially direct imports, dependents, and cycles. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings or what conditions make it or alternatives appropriate.

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