get_package_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that dependencies come from package.xml, supports filtering by dependency types, and can traverse the full closure transitively. It doesn't mention return format or potential side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'get'.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and parameter details following. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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?

While the core functionality is covered, the tool has four parameters and no output schema. The description omits workspace_root, and the return format is not addressed. This leaves the agent with some uncertainty about how to invoke the tool fully and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains depend_types and transitive in detail, and package_name is obvious. However, workspace_root is not mentioned at all, leaving a parameter unexplained. This is a notable gap for a 3-param tool.

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 that the tool retrieves package dependencies and reverse dependents, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_packages, which likely only lists packages without dependency relationships.

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 on what the tool does and how to control its behavior via depend_types and transitive. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is relevant.

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