analyze_coupling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the metrics and the analytical purpose, implying a read-only computation, but it does not describe the output format, return structure, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps about what exactly the agent will receive.

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 focused sentences deliver the tool's purpose, the computed metrics, and the practical motivation. Every phrase carries meaning; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its purpose. It could be improved by outlining the expected output shape, but the metric list makes the result semantics reasonably clear.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, and the schema already states it is the 'Project root directory.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Analyze') tied to a concrete resource ('module coupling metrics') and enumerates the exact metrics computed (Ca, Ce, instability, hub scores). It also states the analytical purpose ('identifies tightly-coupled modules that may resist change'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_complexity or analyze_imports.

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 a clear use context: identifying tightly-coupled modules that may resist change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the intended scenario is evident enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling analysis tools.

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