repo_find_dependencies

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it parses manifests recursively or only at the top level, how conflicting or unresolvable dependency declarations are reported, or what the resulting structure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the ecosystems listed compactly; nothing is redundant. The brevity edges into under-specification rather than padding, so it is efficient but thin.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it does not explain what 'analyze' yields (a dependency list, a graph, detected conflicts, or build-health findings). For a repo-scanning tool whose return value is entirely undocumented, that is a real gap.

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 single 'root' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default to the workspace root, so the schema does the work here. The description's phrase 'in the repository' loosely aligns with that parameter but adds no scoping or path-format meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is 100%.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: analyze dependencies declared in build files, with concrete examples of the ecosystems (Make/CMake/Cargo/npm). It partially distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like build_analyze and repo_inspect by naming build-file dependency declaration as the target, though 'Analyze' leaves the actual output ambiguous.

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 choose this over build_analyze, repo_inspect, or repo_get_architecture, all of which could plausibly cover build configuration. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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