get_module_coupling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Calculates' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit statement about side effects, required permissions, or data access. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral details such as whether it modifies state or requires prior analysis.

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 extremely concise with zero wasted words. It uses a clear structure with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values. However, it omits any note about prerequisites like scanning the project first (suggested by sibling tools). The output schema exists, so explaining return values is sufficient.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: 'path' as project root directory and 'module' as module/file path. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though no constraints or formats are provided.

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 the tool calculates coupling metrics of a module, specifying afferent, efferent, and instability metrics. It uses a specific verb ('hesaplar' / calculates) and resource ('coupling metrics of a module'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like detect_code_smells or get_dependency_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 versus alternatives. Siblings include many analysis tools, but the description does not provide context on prerequisites (e.g., project must be scanned) or conditions where coupling metrics are appropriate.

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