get_dependency_health

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds real behavioral depth beyond them: the OpenSSF Scorecard is only surfaced when the GitHub repo is known, and it is omitted or flagged with capabilityUnavailable when deps.dev has no scorecard for the repo, is offline, or unreachable. This degradation behavior is valuable context an agent could not derive from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, with supporting detail on the scorecard capability second. The em-dash clause is dense but information-bearing rather than redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still sketches the scorecard shape. For a read-only aggregation tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is guidance on how it relates to the many sibling inspection tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so projectPath and the dependency coordinates/version are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning ('when the GitHub repository is known' implies repo resolution), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get health signals for Maven dependencies') and enumerates the concrete signal categories returned: version info, GitHub activity, issue stats, license, maintenance signals. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_dependency_license or get_latest_version.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (get_dependency_license, get_dependency_vulnerabilities, get_latest_version). It explains capability and failure modes but offers no usage conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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