Analyze module import dependencies in Lean 4 projects. Traverse forward (imports) or reverse (importedBy) to understand code structure and impact.
Forward and reverse module import dependency hierarchy analysis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | No | Direction of dependency traversal (default: both) | |
| moduleName | Yes | Full module name (e.g. EASCI.ReinforcementLearning.Core) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that traversal can be forward/reverse and that the subject is dependency hierarchy, but it does not say what the tool returns, whether dependencies are direct or transitive, or what 'analysis' produces. Some behavior is disclosed, but key traits are left implicit.
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?
A single compact phrase with no filler; the subject and directional scope are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, so it earns a top conciseness score.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to specify the result shape or behavioral outcome, but it only labels the operation as 'analysis'. For a tool that returns a hierarchy, the absence of any return/format or depth information leaves an agent without a clear model of what invoking it will produce.
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 explains moduleName and direction values. The description adds the forward/reverse framing but no additional parameter semantics beyond the enum descriptions, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 identifies the resource as module import dependency hierarchy and the key scope axis as forward/reverse, which is distinct from the sibling tools that target goals, symbols, and FFI inspection. It lacks a direct action verb like 'returns' or 'computes', so it is clear but not maximally explicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given. The intended use is inferable from the name and sibling list, but the description never states when to choose this over other Lean inspection tools or what the prerequisites are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.