ensure_passenger_deps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutating action (install/update), but does not mention required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing dependencies), error scenarios, or whether the operation is idempotent or safe to rerun.

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, focused sentence that avoids redundancy. It includes relevant examples without extraneous detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a prerequisite (registered application). However, it does not describe what happens if the app is not registered, the return value, or potential delays, but these are less critical for such a simple tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with a description ('Application name'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies a clear action ('Install/update dependencies') and resource ('registered application'), with concrete examples (npm install, pip install). It distinguishes itself from sibling passenger app tools that handle registration, enabling, or disabling rather than dependencies.

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 phrase 'for a registered application' implies a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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