npm_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the specific dependency categories returned, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This aligns with the baseline for descriptions that benefit from strong 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 immediately states the core action and then enumerates the dependency categories. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description adequately conveys the purpose and return type (dependency lists). While it does not detail the exact response structure, the simplicity of the tool and the strong annotations make the description sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions: 'name' (Package name) and 'version' (Semver version or dist-tag, default 'latest'). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the tool operates on a specific version, which is consistent with the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('dependency lists for a specific package version'), explicitly enumerating the dependency types (production deps, devDeps, peerDeps, optionalDeps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_dep_tree or npm_package, which likely serve different purposes.

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 npm_dep_tree or npm_package. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The intended use is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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