Compute topological dependency distances (D0, D1, D2) for a target file and return a bundled Markdown context to reduce token bloat.
Calculate topological dependency distances (D0 full, D1 interface, D2 nominal) and return bundled Markdown context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_file | Yes | Path to the active target file in editing (D0) | |
| project_root | No | Root directory of the project. Defaults to target file's directory. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool calculates distances and returns Markdown context, which implies a read-only analysis operation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is not misleading, but it lacks depth about behavior beyond the basic operation.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes the key output type (Markdown context) and the three distance types, which are useful details. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage context.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned Markdown context contains and any side effects. It mentions the distance types and output format, but does not describe the structure of the bundled context or how the distances are presented. For a tool with two simple parameters, this is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the D0 label to target_file, which clarifies its role in the distance calculation, and project_root is implied by the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('topological dependency distances'), and names the output ('bundled Markdown context'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like prune_file and evaluate_spec_axioms by focusing on dependency distance calculation and context bundling. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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: it is for calculating dependency distances and returning context, likely when an agent needs topological context for a target file. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prune_file or evaluate_spec_axioms, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.