bundle_find_heavy_deps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Identify' and 'suggest' imply a non-destructive analysis tool, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the package.json is sent to an external service, how the suggestions are generated, or any authentication/network implications.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and value.

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 simple analysis tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. It lacks an output schema and does not describe the result format, success criteria, or failure behavior, so an agent knows what the tool does but not exactly what to expect in return.

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%: both api_key and package_json already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Identify heavy dependencies and suggest lighter alternatives' tells an agent what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like bundle_analyze_size, bundle_optimize, or dep_audit, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. With many dependency-related and bundle-related siblings present, an agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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