module_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It is silent about whether this operation is read-only, whether it can be expensive or require specific permissions. For a graph resolution tool, it would be helpful to mention that it may traverse large graphs or require workspace indexing.

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, clear sentence that is concise and gets to the point. It could be slightly more structured by mentioning parameters, but as is, it is adequately sized and not verbose.

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, no annotations, and no parameter detail, the description is insufficient for a complex graph-resolution tool. The agent cannot predict what the response contains, nor does it understand the impact of the 'transitive' flag. It needs more detail on the structure of the resolved graph and any potential side effects.

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. It does not mention the 'name' parameter meaning or how 'transitive' affects the resolution. Users have to infer from the schema that 'name' is required and 'transitive' defaults to false, but the description adds no additional meaning.

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 verb 'Resolve' and specific resource 'module' and lists the outputs: interface units, imports, dependencies, and importing translation units. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like module_search and module_quality, which likely search or analyze modules rather than resolve their 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like module_search, module_quality, references, definitions might overlap in purpose, but the description does not clarify when to choose this tool over them. It does not mention any preconditions or consequences.

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