detect_circular_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a non-mutating detection operation and mentions a specific technique (textual parsing), but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., false negatives for non-textual references), error behavior, or performance implications. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that packs all essential information (what, how, output) without redundancy. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. This is an excellent example of concise writing.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of functionality and return value. However, it omits any detail about the meaning of the 'path' and 'include_addons' parameters, and the structure of the returned cycle paths is unspecified. Given the moderate complexity, the description is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('path' and 'include_addons'). The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving their purpose and acceptable values entirely to the schema defaults, which are minimal. Since schema descriptions are absent, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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 the action ('Detect cycles'), the resource ('scenes'), the method ('by parsing ext_resource scene references textually'), and the output ('return each cycle path'). This specific phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_dependencies, which lists dependencies but does not detect cycles.

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 usage scenario: finding circular dependencies among scenes. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The reference to textual parsing gives a hint about its approach but not about when it is most appropriate.

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