dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It details the actions performed but omits behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., it is likely read-only), performance implications, or auth requirements.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Front-loads the main purpose and efficiently adds specifics.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and the description mentions the Mermaid diagram output. It covers the main functionality but could hint at output structure, though not required due to output schema.

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% for the single parameter 'project_path'. The description mentions 'all Fortran modules in the project' implying path usage, but provides no format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond the schema type.

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?

Description clearly states it computes a dependency graph and detects mutable public state in Fortran modules, with specific actions like scanning 'use' statements and generating Mermaid diagrams. This distinguishes it from siblings like project_metrics or analyze_pure_candidates.

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 implies usage for understanding module dependencies but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. Context of unique sibling set partially compensates, but no direct guidance is provided.

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