Module Dependencies Analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it 'suggests' missing dependencies but does not clarify whether it only reports or also modifies code, what permissions are needed, or how analysis is scoped, leaving mutation/side-effect questions unanswered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but for a two-parameter tool it is arguably too terse rather than deliberately minimal.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but with no annotations and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. It omits scope, side effects, and parameter meaning an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and neither parameter is explained. The description does not say what machine_name identifies or what the optional path is for (e.g., a filesystem path vs. a module subpath), so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (module code) and adds the distinguishing outcome 'suggest missing dependencies'. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like module_dependencies or dependency_scan, leaving the agent to guess which dependency-oriented tool to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over module_dependencies, dependency_scan, or analyze_d9_site, nor any prerequisite or context trigger. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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