angular_module_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the graph contains but not the return format, whether it includes transitive dependencies, or any side effects. It also does not clarify that this is a read-only operation or that it requires a loaded project, which is implied by the parameter but not explicit.

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 one concise sentence that provides the core information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key term 'NgModules graph' and efficiently lists the contained elements.

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 gives the essential purpose and content of the graph, but given no output schema and no annotations, it is somewhat thin. It does not explain how the graph is represented or how it relates to other Angular analysis tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already covers 100% of parameter semantics. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific resource ('NgModules graph') and enumerates its contents ('declarations, imports and providers per module'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'angular_dependency_graph' by focusing specifically on NgModules rather than a broader dependency graph.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'angular_dependency_graph' or 'list_angular_modules'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., loaded project), use cases, or conditions where this tool is preferred.

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