analyze_project_dependencies

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real domain context (optionalDependencies, version "instance", the --fa deploy path), but leaves the most consequential behavioral question open: does it only report findings or also mutate package.json? Read-only is inferable from 'analyzes' but never stated, and there is no mention of return shape or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the what before the when, with no filler. The trailing 'regardless of the local preview workflow' clause is slightly awkward but does eliminate a real mis-selection, so it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the whole picture. It handles purpose and triggering well, but an agent still cannot tell whether the tool writes to package.json or only recommends changes, nor what the analysis produces. Adequate but with a meaningful gap for a mutation-adjacent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both packageJsonPath and plannedComponentTags are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the domain meaning of the components involved but adds no syntax, format, or default guidance 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?

States a specific verb (analyzes) and a precisely bounded resource (a Next Experience UI component project's package.json) plus the exact thing being looked for: platform components that should be declared as optionalDependencies with version "instance". An agent can tell this apart from validate_now_ui_manifest or resolve_component_package without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when adding or changing instance-backed platform dependencies', and ties it to a concrete downstream action (preparation for snc ui-component deploy --fa). It also clears away a potential false trigger with 'regardless of the local preview workflow'. No sibling alternative is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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