scan_project_deps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads package.json, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, error handling (e.g., file not found), rate limits, or output behavior. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of operational traits beyond the obvious read-only scan.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately mentions the input file. Every sentence is essential and clear.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues, formatted report) or any side effects. It does not. For a scanning tool with two parameters, the agent is left guessing the output structure and failure modes. This is a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds value by linking the check types ('updates', 'deprecated', 'security') to their meanings (outdated packages, major updates, deprecated packages, security advisories). However, it does not provide additional syntax, format, or dependency context beyond what the schema already offers.

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The description clearly states the tool scans project dependencies for outdated packages, major updates, deprecated packages, and security advisories. It specifies it reads package.json. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_packages or get_version_info, which could be confused for similar purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid using it. The usage context is only implied by the action description.

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