security_fetch_dependency_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns all direct and transitive dependencies but does not disclose any side effects, performance characteristics, or limitations (e.g., pagination, authentication needs, rate limits). The read-only nature is implied but 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?

The description is three sentences with no extraneous information. It immediately states the purpose in the first sentence, then lists required inputs, and finally describes the output. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 that an output schema exists (indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on supported ecosystems, error handling, prerequisites, or potential performance issues. It is minimally complete for a straightforward fetch tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only restates parameter names ('package, version, ecosystem') without adding format details, examples, or valid values (e.g., ecosystem values like 'npm'). It adds minimal semantic value 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?

The description clearly states the action 'get' and the resource 'full dependency tree for a software package'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities by focusing on the dependency tree, not vulnerabilities or licenses.

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 says 'Use this to get the full dependency tree', which implies usage for dependency resolution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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