get_most_coupled

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the computation (combined in-degree + out-degree), the prerequisite of a prior reindex, and states it's not an API call. This provides good behavioral context beyond schema, though it could mention error handling or performance implications.

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?

Four concise sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, interpretation, prerequisites, and operation mode.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and interpretation of results. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool 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?

The only parameter 'top' is fully described in the input schema (number, default 10, max 100). The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the most highly coupled files, defines coupling as combined in-degree + out-degree, and explains the significance for refactoring. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dependencies and get_dependents by focusing on overall coupling rather than per-file 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?

Explicitly mentions the prerequisite 'Requires a prior reindex' and clarifies 'No API call needed'. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear for an agent.

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