TempoGraph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adequately explains what the tool analyzes (circular imports, layer dependencies) but lacks details on performance characteristics, side effects, or what the dependency graph representation looks like beyond the output format hint.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences plus two parameter lines. Information is front-loaded with the purpose statement first, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. The parameter documentation format is slightly informal but efficient.

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 tool has only three simple string parameters and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, the omission of the required 'repo_path' parameter semantics leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to construct valid arguments.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It successfully documents 'exclude_dirs' (comma-separated prefixes) and 'output_format' (text vs json options), but critically omits documentation for 'repo_path', the only required parameter. This partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 the tool performs 'Dependency analysis' specifically targeting 'circular imports and layer structure' and shows 'which files depend on which layers.' This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'architecture' or 'overview' by focusing on import cycles and layering concerns.

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?

Provides one specific usage context ('Use before refactoring to understand the dependency graph'), which helps agents know when to invoke it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (when to use siblings like 'architecture' instead) or exclusions (when not to use this tool).

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