deps_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core function but not recursion behavior, what happens when no manifests are found, or whether the scan is recursive. The output schema covers return values, so basic behavior is clear but deeper context is absent.

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?

A single sentence, verb-first, with zero waste. Every word earns its place and the core function is 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the essentials are covered. Missing is usage context relative to the sibling analysis tools and behavioral details like recursion depth or empty-result handling. Acceptable for a simple tool but leaves routing to agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema itself. The phrase 'in a project directory' implies that path refers to the directory to scan, providing modest compensation. For a single obvious parameter this is adequate, though it remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 uses a specific verb 'Detect' and precisely names the resource (npm, Maven, and Python manifests in a project directory), which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling audit/tree tools in substance (discovery vs. analysis), though it doesn't explicitly name that distinction.

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 given on when to use this discovery tool versus the sibling tools like deps_npm_audit, deps_maven_tree, or deps_python_packages. An agent has no hint that this tool is a manifest-detection first step that likely precedes those deeper analysis tools.

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