find_unused_dependencies

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

The description includes the term 'heuristic', which honestly signals that results are approximate, providing some transparency. However, with no annotations, this single qualifier is insufficient. The tool does not disclose potential false positives/negatives, whether it respects configured paths, or any runtime considerations, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality and the heuristic caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the result type (a list of unused dependencies) and the heuristic nature. It could mention that it operates on the currently loaded project, but the schema and tool context make that implicit. Overall, it is nearly complete for its simplicity.

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 a clear description for 'name'. The tool description reinforces that 'name' refers to the loaded project, which adds a small amount of context. However, the description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 precisely states what the tool does: it lists package.json dependencies not imported in any file. It clearly identifies the resource (package.json dependencies) and differentiates from sibling tools like find_unused_variables or find_dead_code, which target code-level unused items.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context about scenarios where it should be preferred or avoided. The description is purely definitional and leaves the agent without decision support.

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