find_circular_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral details: returns an envelope with sorted items (by cycle length descending), totalCount, truncated, and limit. It indicates a read-only operation (detect) without destructive hints. However, it omits error behavior or performance considerations.

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 concise sentences: first sentence states purpose, second describes output format. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description provides the output structure. It covers purpose and parameters adequately for a simple tool. However, it lacks usage guidelines and prerequisites, which would enhance completeness.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description reiterates the level options and limit default/sorting, adding marginal value. The output envelope description (items, totalCount, etc.) is helpful but not strictly parameter semantics.

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 detects circular dependencies in two specific graphs (project reference and namespace dependency). It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('circular dependencies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_dependencies or analyze_data_flow.

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 implies usage for detecting cycles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_dependencies or get_call_graph. No exclusion criteria or context about when it is not appropriate.

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