Analyse repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns and that it computes a dependency graph, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by a usage recommendation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description includes a comprehensive list of returned summary items, serving as a form of output documentation since no output schema exists. It also gives usage context. It could mention limitations (e.g., language support or scalability) or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% for the single 'directory' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 'Builds a dependency graph for a codebase' and lists specific outputs (file count, import edges, entry points, circular dependencies, most complex modules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual analyses, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of reading every file when you need architectural context.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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