deps_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets requirements but does not explain authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., for non-existent packages), or the structure of the returned data. Essential traits for a retrieval tool are omitted.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary context, making it somewhat under-specified. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for leaving key details to 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the existence of many sibling deps tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what 'requirements' entails, whether it returns a list or object, or how it differs from deps_dependencies. The description leaves significant gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (ecosystem, name, version) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, as it only mentions using 'version' implicitly. Per guidelines, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is provided.

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 retrieves 'requirements (version constraints)' for a specific package version from deps.dev. The verb 'Get' and resource 'requirements' are specific, and the mention of 'version constraints' distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like deps_dependencies and deps_version.

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 such as deps_dependencies or deps_version. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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