detect_circular_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that results are sorted by length and notes that shorter cycles are often more problematic. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention performance implications for large codebases.

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 three sentences, efficient but with a minor redundancy: the first sentence about routing ('Routes to the active/current project automatically') is not central to the tool's purpose. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loads the core action.

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 explains return value sorting and interpretation but lacks details on output format, data structure of cycles, or potential limitations (e.g., large graphs). Given no output schema, this is adequate but leaves ambiguity for complex filtering needs.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'scope' is described as an optional path prefix in both). Baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Analyze the import graph to detect circular dependencies between files.' It identifies a specific verb (analyze/detect) and a distinct resource (circular dependencies in imports), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_codebase_health.

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 explains why circular dependencies are problematic ('can cause initialization issues, tight coupling'), implying the tool's value. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_codebase_health), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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