module_dependencies

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds behavior: test files are omitted by default (include_tests flips it) and output is capped at <=1200 tokens. These are non-obvious traits beyond the annotation. It omits any note on pagination/limit interaction or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Very compressed telegraphic phrasing that is front-loaded with the main purpose, then modes, then caveats. Every fragment carries information, though the sentence fragments ('No module: overview') cost a little readability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnly, the description partially compensates by listing what per-module results include (imports, importers, external deps, cycles). However it never explains the limit parameter's role or the overview's return shape, leaving gaps for an agent that must call it blind.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define the 'module' parameter's accepted forms (a name, 'pkg.*', or a prefix) and the effect of include_tests, but the 'limit' parameter (default 10, integer) is never explained in the description or schema. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a concrete verb/resource pair: the import graph between packages/modules plus import cycles. It clearly separates the two operating modes ('No module: overview' vs 'module: ... its imports, importers, external deps, cycles'), so an agent understands the tool's scope. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself against siblings like repo_summary or find_references, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives explicit conditional usage: omit 'module' for a whole-repo overview, pass a name/'pkg.*'/prefix for per-module detail, and note test files are excluded unless include_tests. That is clear routing within the tool's own modes. No named alternative sibling or exclusion condition is provided, so it stops short of 5.

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