dep_check_unpinned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the detection goal and risk but does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, error behavior, side effects, or whether it modifies files. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema or annotations.

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 fluff. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential detail on version range patterns and rationale. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool being a detection/check, the description should clarify return values (e.g., list of affected dependencies, exit codes) or integration with reports. It misses this context, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Project directory containing package.json'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, remaining at baseline. No compensation needed.

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 detects dependencies with unpinned version ranges and lists specific patterns (^, ~, *, >=). It distinguishes from sibling dep_check_* tools (e.g., dep_check_license, dep_check_typosquatting) by focusing on version pinning, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when checking for unpinned version ranges to prevent silent malicious updates, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling dep_check tools.

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