analyze_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the operation is read-only (a 'view') and returns specific finding types. It notes the detail modes (slim vs full) affect output verbosity. However, it doesn't disclose limits, performance implications of scanning vs session reuse, or what happens with a stale/invalid sessionId.

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 and reasonably efficient. The opening sentence conveys purpose, the second teaches the detail parameter, and the third gives the strategic usage tip. Minor redundancy in phrase 'Dependency health view' and no wasted words overall.

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?

For a moderately complex analysis tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, a usage preference (sessionId over path), and output control (detail). However, it lacks information about return structure, defaults for limit, and error/edge-case behavior—relevant gaps given no output schema or annotation support exists. It's a solid baseline but not a complete specification.

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 for all four parameters. It does address sessionId preference and detail=full semantics, but says nothing about the 'path' parameter format beyond implying it's a valid alternative input, and doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior or defaults. Roughly half of the params get meaningful context.

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 states the tool returns 'layer violations, circular cycles, and slim findings' from a review_project session or path. It clearly distinguishes its dependency-analysis focus from siblings like analyze_code_quality, analyze_architecture, and review_project. However, 'Dependency health view' is somewhat generic, and the relationship to analyze_architecture specifically is not clarified.

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 explicitly advises preferring sessionId over path ('Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning'), which tells the agent how to select the input parameter for efficiency. It also explains how to get full arrays via 'detail=full'. This is concrete, actionable usage guidance that distinguishes when to use this tool and how to invoke it effectively.

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