dev_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It describes output content but does not state whether the tool is read-only, scans the filesystem, requires network access, or has side effects. It also omits any performance or error implications. The behavior is not transparent.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept and lists specifics efficiently. While it could be slightly more structured with an explicit verb, it is economical and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has one undocumented parameter and no annotations. Even though an output schema exists (which may clarify return values), the description omits critical context about the workspace parameter and how ecosystems are detected. It is incomplete for an agent to call correctly without further inference.

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 only parameter 'workspace' has zero schema description coverage (0%), and the description does not mention it at all. The agent has no idea what workspace does, how it affects the results, or what values are acceptable. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 tool reports dependency state per ecosystem, listing specific data points (package manager, lockfile, counts, local install). It is specific about content, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list'. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dev_detect, dev_health, or dev_drift. No mention of context that would trigger this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer when to call it.

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