get_dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the output structure (node list, edge list, Mermaid diagram) and implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks details like performance implications of depth, potential size limits, or any side effects.

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 concise (~50 words) with a clear structure: purpose sentence followed by labelled Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section could be slightly more specific.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, with a known output schema) and many sibling tools, the description provides basic functionality but lacks comparative context to help agents choose among related tools like get_call_graph or detect_architecture. Output schema existence is noted but not described.

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 compensates by briefly explaining each parameter: 'path: project root', 'root_file: start file (None = all project)', 'depth: max depth'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a module dependency graph, using a specific verb ('return') and resource ('module dependency graph'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like 'get_call_graph' and 'get_class_hierarchy' by focusing on module-level dependencies, but does not explicitly distinguish them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_impact, find_circular_dependencies). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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