analyze_dependency_graph

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what gets analyzed (e.g., circular dependencies, module clusters), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like performance implications, output format, or error handling. With annotations covering core safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points of analysis content and usage examples. It avoids redundancy and wastes no sentences, though the keyword list could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what the analysis entails but lacks details on return values or error cases. Annotations cover safety aspects, but without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what results to expect (e.g., graph structure, report format). It's adequate but has gaps in completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., projectPath, targetFile, maxDepth). The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how maxDepth affects analysis or what includeExternal entails. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic insights.

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 tool analyzes code dependency graphs, listing specific analysis aspects like import/export relationships, circular dependency detection, module clustering, and coupling analysis. It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., analyze_complexity, check_coupling_cohesion) by focusing specifically on dependency graphs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like get_memory_graph which might have overlapping concepts. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 usage examples that imply when to use this tool (e.g., analyzing src folder dependencies or index.ts relationships), giving some contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or clear alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. check_coupling_cohesion or analyze_complexity). The guidelines are helpful but not comprehensive for tool selection.

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