Get dependency graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it resolves imports/exports, exposes a dependency graph, detects cycles, and ranks inbound/outbound hotspots. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the read-only safety context, then lists the tool's capabilities in a compact colon-separated list. Every phrase carries meaning and there is no filler.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and select it appropriately. The description covers the high-level capabilities while schema and annotations handle parameter and safety details.

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%, with each of the 6 optional parameters documented including defaults and maximums. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, and it adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. 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 and resource: 'Read-only project architecture analysis' that resolves imports/exports, exposes a dependency graph, detects cycles, and ranks hotspots. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_call_graph or get_symbol_graph by focusing on import/export dependency structure.

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 clear context: this is for project architecture analysis based on imports/exports and dependency relationships. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'read-only project architecture analysis' framing gives sufficient guidance for when to select this tool over obvious siblings.

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