module_route

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains traversal of import graph and output formats (text, json, mermaid, dot). Does not mention error handling or what happens if no path exists, but adequate for most uses.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no wasted words. Includes example usage in quotes and key format options efficiently.

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 7 parameters all described in schema, description covers purpose, output format implications, and typical use cases. Minor gap: no mention of behavior when from==to or no path found, but these are edge cases. Output schema absent but not required.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context like 'all simple paths instead of just shortest' and format output types, but mostly reinforces schema. No significant new information beyond parameter names and types.

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?

Clear verb-resource pairing: 'Show the transitive dependency path(s) between two modules' and distinguishes from sibling tools like call_tree, find_usages, and module_info by focusing on dependency paths through the import graph.

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?

Explicit use cases: 'use to answer how does X depend on Y? trace coupling, or generate a dependency diagram.' Lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling list shows many different tools so context is sufficient.

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