composer_deps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the output content (direct requires, Laravel and PHP versions) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the possibility of errors if composer.json is missing, or any side effects. This is a modest disclosure for a simple inspection tool.

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, brief sentence that concisely states what the tool provides. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no extraneous words. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 simple, zero-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description is adequate: it tells the agent what the tool returns. It does not specify the input source (e.g., composer.json) or exact formatting, but due to the low complexity and lack of structured schema, this is not a significant 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing direct composer requires with versions, plus Laravel and PHP versions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_routes and list_migrations because it focuses on dependencies. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies the tool is used to inspect project dependency information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. For a tool with clearly distinct siblings, the implication is sufficient, but explicit guidance is missing.

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