atlas_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what the tool analyzes, but does not disclose whether it performs read-only operations, requires network access for security/vulnerability checks, generates reports, or has any side effects on the project. The absence of such behavioral context is a significant gap for an analysis 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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses a comma-separated list to enumerate features. Every listed item adds value and there is no redundancy or filler. It is compact and scannable, making it easy for an agent 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 six parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview of all the analysis dimensions. However, it does not describe the return format, any required prerequisites (e.g., package manager, lock file), or how results are presented. Given the complexity, it's adequately complete but leaves room for more detail on output and usage context.

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?

Although the input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaning by grouping the parameters into a coherent list of analysis categories (e.g., findUnused -> unused packages, checkSecurity -> security vulnerabilities). It also implies additional analyses like 'dependency graph' and 'circular dependencies' that are not directly represented as parameters, giving richer context.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Comprehensive dependency analysis' with a list of seven specific analysis types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like atlas_security or atlas_performance_doctor by covering multiple dependency-related concerns in one place. The verb 'analysis' and resource 'dependencies' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for a broad dependency health check by listing all the dimensions it covers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like atlas_security for vulnerabilities or atlas_performance_doctor for bundle size. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the selection to inference.

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