scan_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it parses specific files and returns dependency details. It does not disclose side effects, but the tool is likely read-only. The description is sufficiently transparent for a simple listing tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and list of files, then explains utility. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers what, how, and why. It does not mention error handling or behavior when no lockfiles are found, but it's otherwise complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (path) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds context about the path being the project directory, but the schema already describes it. The description does not go into depth beyond the schema, earning a baseline score.

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 specifies the tool lists resolved dependencies by parsing lockfiles/manifests, naming specific files (Cargo.lock, package-lock.json, etc.) and return fields (name, version, ecosystem). It clearly distinguishes from sibling check_vulnerabilities.

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 advises using it to give the assistant ground-truth about project dependencies, indicating clear context for use. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention when not to use it, but the sibling tool provides a natural alternative.

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