circular_deps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Find all') without explaining output format, traversal behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. Missing details like what constitutes a 'chain' and how results are returned make this inadequate.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise.

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, the description should at least hint at what the result looks like or mention edge cases, but it does not. It also omits any context about required configuration (e.g., tsconfig) beyond the schema, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's overall behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (source_root, exclude, tsconfig, exclude_patterns) are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so a 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 'Find all circular dependency chains' clearly states a specific verb (find) and resource (circular dependency chains), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like forward_deps and reverse_deps that handle non-circular dependencies. It is unambiguous and oriented toward the tool's unique function.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where circular dependency analysis is needed, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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