check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions tracking imports and returning analysis, but it does not discuss side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any constraints. The description is minimal beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose followed by an Args block that lists each parameter. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Japanese text could be slightly shorter. The front-loading of the core purpose is good.

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 covers the tool's functionality and parameter meanings adequately. However, it lacks details about the return format beyond 'detailed analysis and judgment'. Given no output schema and no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial, especially regarding expected output structure.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for all four parameters: entry_point (project entry file), package_name (package to investigate), python_path (site-packages path, auto-detect if empty), and max_depth (max search depth, default 5). This significantly aids the agent in understanding parameter usage.

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 that the tool analyzes how a specific package is used in a project, tracking import chains, gateway functions, and call status. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('package'), and while the sibling 'analyze' exists, the description narrows focus to package usage, providing decent differentiation.

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 description only explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like analyze, generate, etc. It lacks any 'when not to use' or context for selection, leaving the agent without decision support.

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