analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavior: pagination semantics ("paginated with limit/offset") and the notable nuance that unused includes entry points, which prevents misreading results. However it omits whether an index is required, error behavior, or return shape for a 7-parameter analysis tool.

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 tight sentences: purpose front-loaded, then a dense but scannable kind enumeration, closing with the pagination note. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully frame the tool. It covers modes and pagination but leaves output format per kind, index prerequisites (surprising given index_project/check_index_status siblings), and default behavior for optional filters unaddressed.

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 86%, so the schema already documents sort, limit, offset, min_dependents, and the island-size bounds. The description only reinforces the kind enum and the limit/offset pagination pairing, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource precisely ("Import-graph analysis") and enumerates all five modes with parenthetical definitions (summary=counts, hotspots=most-imported, circular=cycles, unused=files nothing imports, islands=disconnected groups). This makes each operation concrete, though it never distinguishes itself from the conceptually adjacent sibling get_dependencies.

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 kind definitions imply which mode answers which question, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether an index must exist), and no routing against siblings like get_dependencies or find_references. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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