detect_circular_deps

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the algorithm (DFS-based cycle detection) and the return contents (cycles with involved files and impact assessment). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a local clone versus a URL, or what happens when repo_path is omitted.

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 filler. The main action is front-loaded and the return-value summary is compact. Every part of the text earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns. Yet without an output schema or annotations it stays slightly incomplete: the fact that repo_path is not required is unexplained, and there is no mention of side effects or prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves a few gaps.

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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Path or URL to the repository'), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies; the description does not need to repeat what the schema already provides.

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 ('Detect'), a precise object ('circular dependencies between modules'), and even names the algorithm and return contents. It is clear and task-specific, but unlike a 5 it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling analysis tools such as analyze_coupling.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The intended use is only implied by the action word 'Detect'. An agent is given no guidance about when analyze_coupling or detect_architectural_drift would be more appropriate.

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