getDependencies

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get dependencies', which implies a read operation, but fails to mention whether authentication is required, how errors are handled (e.g., missing version), response format, or any side effects. The description is critically insufficient for understanding 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 a single sentence, which is concise in length but not in value. It is under-specified, lacking essential details. Brevity at the expense of completeness is not effective conciseness; the description should be longer to provide meaningful guidance.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of dependency coordinates), error conditions, pagination, or how to interpret results. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a brief description (e.g., 'Maven group ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, this warrants a baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Get dependencies') and the resource ('for a specific artifact version'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getLatestVersion' and 'searchArtifacts', which deal with different aspects of artifacts. The verb+resource is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, context (e.g., when you need to resolve dependencies), or when not to use it. The sibling tools are listed externally but not differentiated in the description.

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