sswp_analyze_deps

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context about the optional Kimi K2 deep reasoning pass requiring OLLAMA_CLOUD_API_KEY, and that it returns INCONCLUSIVE without it. No contradictions.

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 moderately long but each sentence is informative. It is well-structured: purpose, usage, analysis passes, API key note, return format, and sibling guidance. Could be slightly more front-loaded with the API key dependency, but overall effective.

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 with no output schema, the description adequately describes the return (JSON with per-probe results, risk score, counts) and input requirements. It covers the API key dependency and the four analysis passes, making it sufficiently complete for an analysis tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds guidance that version strings should be as they appear in package-lock.json and clarifies the object structure, providing additional context beyond the schema.

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 analyzes dependencies for supply-chain risk, lists four specific analysis passes, and explicitly distinguishes it from sswp_witness for attestations. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('list of dependencies'), meeting the highest standard.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this for targeted supply-chain analysis on critical dependency trees' and contrasts with sswp_witness. It also specifies that the tool works for npm packages and requires an API key for deep reasoning.

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