package_deps

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints. The description adds meaningful context: it specifies the output includes direct/transitive dependencies with versions, counts, and deprecated flags, and also notes the service is free. This goes beyond the schema and 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 tool's purpose. It includes only essential information, with the 'Free' note being compact and useful. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return information: direct and transitive dependencies, versions, counts, and deprecated flags. It covers supported ecosystems and the optional version parameter. Minor gaps like error behavior or depth limits are not addressed, but the core is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (ecosystem, name, version) already documented including enums and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond repeating the ecosystem types, so 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 identifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'dependency graph' for npm, PyPI, or crates.io packages. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on dependency analysis rather than snapshots, vulnerabilities, or download statistics.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you need dependency graphs for supported ecosystems), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, though their purposes are distinct.

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