security_fetch_dependency_graph

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. Hard 8-second timeout — large dependency trees may return partial results. 1-hour cache.' This exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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 slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value (purpose, behavior, parameters, usage guidance, source, cache, feedback). It is well-structured with clear sections, though could be slightly more concise.

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 no annotations and a complex tool with 3 required parameters and an output, the description covers: purpose, behavioral traits, parameter details, usage alternatives, source reliability, caching, timeout, partial results, and feedback channel. It leaves no critical gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: package name, exact version string with example, and ecosystem with explicit list of valid values. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., enumerating ecosystems in a list).

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 explicitly states 'Fetch the full dependency tree for a package version including transitive dependencies', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities as an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use ('understand full supply chain exposure') and when-not-to-use ('when you only need CVEs for a single package') with a named alternative. Also includes a feedback mechanism if the tool does not serve the user's need.

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