detect_cycles

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

Description aligns with readOnlyHint annotation by stating it returns components from the current graph. It adds specific behavioral detail about what it returns (SCCs with >1 file), which goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and result, second provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral traits, and usage. It lacks details about the output format or behavior when no cycles exist, but this is a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns strongly connected components with more than one file from the dependency graph, and positions it for inspecting circular dependencies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependencies and analyze_impact.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to inspect circular dependencies before refactors or release gates', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, though context with sibling tools implies distinctions.

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