find_circular_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions the algorithm (Tarjan's SCC) and output (cycle paths and affected packages), which offers some behavioral insight. However, it does not discuss performance, side effects, or behavior when no cycles exist.

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 relatively concise, but the two usage lines are somewhat redundant. It is well-structured with clear sections for usage and output, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and a prerequisite. However, with no output schema, the return format is only vaguely described as 'List of circular dependency cycles'. More detail on the output structure would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by showing usage examples for 'packageFilter', but does not mention 'maxCycleLength'. Overall, it neither significantly enhances nor harms understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Detect cycles in packages' and provides usage examples. The tool name is self-explanatory, and the description distinguishes it from generic analysis tools like analyze_control_flow.

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 includes the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first' and shows usage patterns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the tool's specificity makes its use case clear.

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