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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'List external dependencies of a project' and omits any details about return format, pagination, potential side effects (e.g., network calls), or operational constraints. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, earning high marks for conciseness. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add useful context (e.g., that it is read-only or supports pagination), so it is not a perfect 5.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to provide more operational context. The single-line description covers the core purpose but leaves out important behavioral and usage context that would help an agent fully understand the tool's role among its many siblings. The schema helps with parameters, but the description remains incomplete for a well-rounded tool definition.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including a highly detailed explanation of the 'project' parameter's matching rules and fallback behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('external dependencies of a project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmp4_callees and xmp4_callers that focus on code relationships. However, it leaves 'external dependencies' somewhat ambiguous—unclear whether it means packages, libraries, or other modules—preventing a perfect score.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and purpose. The detailed 'project' parameter description in the schema aids invocation but not tool selection.

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