dependencies_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether import merges or replaces the existing graph, what the export format is, how pagination behaves for list, any permission requirements, or side effects. For a multi-action tool, this omission is substantial.

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 sentence front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Manage dependencies at the workspace level'), followed by concrete examples of actions. There is no redundancy or wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With four distinct actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more comprehensive context. It omits return formats, import behavior, pagination details for list, and action-specific requirements, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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%, as every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that 'action' determines the operation, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameter meanings.

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 identifies the tool's resource (workspace-level dependencies) and enumerates specific operations (list, view stats, export/import). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dependencies' by explicitly stating 'workspace level'. However, 'Manage' is a somewhat generic verb, and the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated outright.

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 for workspace-level dependency management by describing the available actions, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., the 'dependencies' sibling for task-level dependencies) and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is clear enough for basic context but lacks explicit direction.

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