dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool reads-only or modifies the repo, any permission requirements, or performance implications. The purpose is clear but operational context is missing.

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 with two short sentences and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It could mention repository structure prerequisites (e.g., git repo) or behavior for unsupported languages, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter explanations in the description are essential. They clarify 'path' as the repo path and 'language' as an auto-detection option with supported languages. This adds basic value, but could be more detailed (e.g., whether path must be a directory or file).

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 maps internal module imports, identifies most-depended-upon modules, and finds circular dependencies. It distinguishes from siblings like architecture_overview (high-level structure) and hotspots (complexity analysis) by focusing specifically on dependency relationships.

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 suggests using the tool to understand coupling, providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when to avoid it or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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