Check peer dependency compatibility

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 states the intent ('verify') without disclosing return format, failure behavior, side effects, or whether it requires permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and other behavioral context. It only mentions 'verify' and 'before installing', leaving the agent uncertain about what to do with the result and how this tool fits into the broader upgrade workflow compared to siblings like validate_upgrade.

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, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'packages' parameter. It only says 'a set of packages' without elaborating that each package needs a name and version, or how the format relates to peerDependency compatibility. The schema structure is clear, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already shows.

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 tool's function: 'Verify peerDependency compatibility for a set of packages before installing.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (peerDependency compatibility), and adds scope ('before installing') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_upgrade or generate_upgrade_plan.

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 provides clear context by saying 'before installing', indicating when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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