Check a dependency manifest

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate those. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: exact pins are checked exactly, ranges are resolved to today's install-pick version, and problems are listed first.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences: the first names the action and scope, the second states version-resolution semantics and output ordering. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a 100%-documented schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: input expectations, version-checking semantics, scope, and result ordering. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by listing the accepted manifest filename patterns (package.json, requirements*.txt, pyproject.toml, etc.) and clarifying that content is the full file text. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'e.g. package.json' example.

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 tool checks every dependency in a manifest file's text and enumerates supported manifest formats, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_packages, though the 'manifest file's text' framing makes the scope inferable.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus get_advisories or check_packages. The supported-format list implies it is for manifest-file inputs, but no alternative is named or excluded, leaving the agent to infer the decision.

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