check_coupling_cohesion

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, deterministic read operation. The description adds context by specifying the analysis focuses on 'coupling', 'cohesion', 'dependencies', and 'module structure', which clarifies the tool's behavioral scope beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 keyword list without proper sentence structure, making it inefficient and poorly organized. It's not front-loaded with a clear purpose, and the keywords could be condensed into a more coherent statement. It lacks conciseness due to under-specification rather than brevity.

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 complexity (analyzing code metrics), annotations cover safety and determinism, but there's no output schema to describe return values. The description provides some context (focus areas) but is incomplete for a tool that likely returns analysis results. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in explaining output or detailed behavior.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful details about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'code' should be formatted or what 'checkDependencies' entails). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 lists keywords ('coupling', 'cohesion', 'dependencies check', 'module structure') that suggest analyzing code metrics, but it lacks a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Analyze code to calculate coupling and cohesion metrics') and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'analyze_complexity' or 'validate_code_quality'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_complexity' or 'validate_code_quality'. Usage is implied through keywords but not clearly stated.

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