dependency_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying the ecosystems (npm/Rust/Python/Go) and the types of data (freshness, deprecation, CVE counts), implying external lookups. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's 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 two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives the usage trigger. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the core purpose, the types of information it provides, and a clear use case. The agent has enough to select and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description wisely focuses on usage context rather than parameter details.

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 states a clear function: it provides dependency version freshness, deprecation, and CVE counts across specific ecosystems. It also includes an explicit usage trigger ('Call when the user asks whether their dependencies are outdated, stale, or need updating'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vulnerability_scan or upgrade_planner.

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 gives a clear when-to-use scenario ('Call when the user asks whether their dependencies are outdated, stale, or need updating'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tool names provide implicit context for comparison.

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