check_dependencies

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 only lists what is checked (conflicts, mismatches, missing packages) and does not state whether the tool modifies anything, what the output/report format looks like, or whether it performs network calls. The verb 'Check' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 sentence of 10 words that front-loads the purpose and contains no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, but could have included a brief note about output or usage context without becoming bloated.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return type or what constitutes a successful check. It does not. An agent knows the tool checks dependencies but cannot predict what result is produced, such as a report, a boolean pass/fail, or a list of problems. For a tool with 3 parameters, the description is thin.

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%, so the schema already explains modulePath, checkOutdated, and checkPeerDeps. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check for dependency conflicts, version mismatches, and missing packages.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like validate_module, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_module or analyze_module. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues.

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