module_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior details (resolves imports/requires, detects cycles, includes importer-less modules), but does not mention read-only nature, prerequisites, or performance characteristics. It is more than a bare repackaging of the name but lacks depth.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's output and key features. No redundant words or filler, making it highly scannable.

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 the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what results to expect: resolved files, cycle detection, and importer-less modules. It doesn't specify output format, but for the complexity level it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name', described as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the 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 that the tool produces a dependency graph between project modules, resolving relative imports/requires to files. It also highlights cycle detection and modules without importers, which distinguishes it from function-level graph tools like function_call_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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as angular_dependency_graph, angular_module_graph, or function_call_graph. The intended context is implied (project module dependencies) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are provided.

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