dep_license_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds value beyond the name by revealing the Pro gating (implied auth/plan requirement) and the flagging behavior. However, it does not disclose whether dependency resolution or installation occurs, what happens when no manifest exists, or the output shape.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that front-loads the action and includes only the useful Pro qualifier. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Adequate for the core purpose, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent must infer what 'flag' returns (report, list, exit code) and what inputs are required beyond directory. A sentence describing the return shape and any manifest prerequisite would close the 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 75%, so the schema already documents directory, project_license, and allowed_licenses. The description adds modest relational meaning: 'incompatible' is judged against project_license and allowed_licenses, and the Pro feature hint ties into api_key. This is helpful but not substantial beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb + resource: it scans dependency licenses and flags incompatible or risky ones. The license-specific focus distinguishes it from the dep_audit, dep_outdated, and dep_update_plan siblings, though it does so implicitly rather than by naming them.

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?

Provides no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no prerequisites such as the presence of a manifest or lockfile, and no exclusions. The only qualifier, '(Pro feature)', signals a plan requirement but not selection criteria.

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