analyze_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses what the tool does NOT do: 'does not run rosdep, query the network, or install anything', and adds 'deterministic' to imply reproducible, side-effect-free behavior. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: the primary function, the scoping behavior, and explicit non-behaviors. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 an output schema exists and the tool has only two optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality, scoping options, and important constraints. Minor gaps remain around selector interaction and the exact nature of the graph output, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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 schema lists two optional string parameters with no descriptions. The description assigns meaning by stating 'with package_name or relative_path it analyzes that package scope', but it does not explain value formats, precedence, or what happens if both are supplied. This is a moderate improvement over the bare 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 starts with a specific verb 'Parse' and a resource 'package.xml dependency declarations', and states the clear output of a 'deterministic workspace graph'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_workspace or inspect_package, which focus on different aspects.

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 clearly explains scoping: without a selector, it analyzes the workspace; with package_name or relative_path, it analyzes that package scope. This provides explicit usage context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternate tools or state when not to use it.

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