analyze_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 for behavioral disclosure. The description states the tool analyzes files for risks, which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects (e.g., saving reports), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the return format. While adequate, it lacks some behavioral context that would be helpful.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and scope, and the second sentence provides exclusion criteria and alternatives. No extraneous information, well front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the lack of annotations, the description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. It specifies input format, allowed manifest types, and what not to use the tool for. The absence of output schema details is not a flaw as the tool likely produces a standard report.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (manifest and manifestType). The description adds value by clarifying that 'manifest' should be the full content of the file and lists the exact enum values for manifestType, reinforcing the schema's meaning. This adds practical context beyond the schema alone.

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 analyzes package manager manifest files for supply-chain risks, version pinning issues, typosquatting indicators, and dependency hygiene. It explicitly lists accepted file types (package.json, requirements.txt, Cargo.toml, go.mod, pom.xml, .csproj) and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying what not to use it for (infrastructure code like Bicep, Terraform, etc.).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is specifically for manifest files and not for infrastructure/deployment configuration. It names alternative tools (evaluate_code or evaluate_code_single_judge) that should be used for excluded scenarios, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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