check_dependencies

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

The annotations declare 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds limited behavioral context: it 'analyzes' dependencies, implying no side effects, but does not elaborate on scope (e.g., recursive scanning, supported package managers) or output format. This is adequate given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy. Every word serves a clear function.

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 simple schema (2 parameters) and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks information about return values (no output schema), supported package managers, or how it differs from sibling tools. More context would improve completeness.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific insights, relying on the schema. The phrase 'multiple package managers' hints at the tool's behavior but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Analyze project dependencies across multiple package managers.' It specifies the action ('analyze') and the resource ('project dependencies') with added scope ('multiple package managers'), distinguishing it from generic analysis tools. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_project' or 'analyze_file'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_project' or 'get_debt_summary'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context-specific use cases. The agent receives no hints about appropriate scenarios.

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