coupled_files

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds interpretive context (what co_changes/ratio mean and that high ratios signal hidden coupling) but no operational traits like ordering, pagination, or result limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded and an interpretive note at the end. Nothing is wasted, though it remains slightly terse given the tool's analytical nuance.

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 a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values; it supplies purpose plus result interpretation. It stops short of full completeness only in that it never situates the tool against alternatives.

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 repo, path, and limit are already documented, and an output schema exists. The description references the 'given file' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (files that co-change in the same commits as a given file) and even names the returned metrics (co_changes, ratio). It does not contrast itself against sibling analysis tools like hotspots or file_history, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings. The closing line 'High ratios reveal hidden coupling' implies the intended analytical use, but the agent must infer selection criteria.

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