get_dependency_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only analysis, but it does not state that the operation is non-destructive, describe what the graph contains, explain how coupling is measured, or mention any side effects or limitations.

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 terse sentence with no filler, and the core object appears at the start. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices useful behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a brief purpose statement. An agent is not told what the returned dependency graph looks like, how includeExternal changes results, how 'highly coupled' is defined, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The description is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents repositoryPath and includeExternal, including the default for includeExternal. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying that dependency relationships are the focus.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and a clear resource ('dependency relationships'), and it states the intent to 'identify highly coupled components,' so an agent can tell what the tool is for. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from analyze_repository, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 implies the tool should be used when dependency relationships or coupling analysis is needed. However, it does not name any sibling alternative, give explicit when-to-use conditions, or explain when not to use this tool.

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