deps_maven_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the command to run but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., downloading dependencies, requiring network), failure modes, or whether it modifies files. The output is not described, relying on the output schema which is not visible here.

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 that front-loads the primary action. It wastes no words, though it could be longer to include essential usage details.

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 that executes a command, the description lacks critical context: prerequisites (Maven installation), error handling, output format, and clear parameter usage. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly, especially given the zero schema coverage.

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 schema has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set it. The description's mention of directory scope might relate, but it is not 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 clearly states the action (run mvn dependency:tree) and the resource (pom.xml) with a specific location scope (this directory or one level down). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other ecosystems (npm, Python, GitHub advisories).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies Maven usage via the command, but does not name any sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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