find_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what files it inspects, whether it executes commands (e.g., package managers), or the nature of its output. This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety and side effects.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. However, its brevity comes at the cost of important context, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what 'dependencies' means, the expected return format, and any limitations. It provides none of this. An agent cannot infer what 'analyze' produces or how to interpret results, making the tool underspecified for safe autonomous use.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (directory) with a description 'The project directory to analyze'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Find and analyze project dependencies' clearly identifies the tool's action (find/analyze) and resource (project dependencies). It distinguishes from code manipulation tools but is somewhat vague about what 'analyze' entails, and does not differentiate from sibling analysis tools like analyze_project or get_project_stats.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like analyze_project and get_project_stats, the description does not explain the specific scenarios for find_dependencies, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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