Dependency Inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints; the description adds the 'best-effort offline' qualifier clarifying performance and dependency on local files, which is useful context beyond 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?

A single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the purpose and specific file types, earning its place efficiently.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately conveys the tool's core function and scope, though it could briefly mention output structure or edge cases (e.g., root paths) to be fully 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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (only 'path' has documentation), the description does not compensate by explaining what 'maxFiles' or 'maxDependenciesPerManifest' control, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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 specific verb 'extract' and resource 'dependencies' from defined manifest files, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sdlc_repo_snapshot which capture broader file content.

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 implies usage for dependency extraction from local manifest files but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other sdlc tools or when to avoid it, missing guidance on alternatives.

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