npm_dep_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: it specifies 'production' dependency tree (excluding dev dependencies), 'up to a configurable depth', and that it shows 'full transitive dependency graph with versions', which goes beyond 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No redundant phrasing or fluff; every word 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?

While the tool is adequately described for a basic invocation, it lacks details on the output shape (e.g., tree structure format) and edge cases like circular dependencies or unresolvable versions. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more explicit. However, annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters, so it is minimally viable.

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% and all parameters (name, depth, version) have detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating the depth and version concepts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Resolve', the resource 'production dependency tree for a package version', and the scope 'full transitive dependency graph with versions'. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's core function from generic package commands.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_dependencies, npm_audit_deep, or npm_versions. The description implies it is for full transitive graph resolution, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention sibling tools.

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