dependency_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a useful scope limitation (no vulnerability claims) but says nothing about output shape, what 'supported' manifests means, or how the inventory is structured, which would have added real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that pairs the positive scope with the negative boundary. No padding, nothing wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should have described what the inventory returns (manifest names, versions, lockfile locations). The undefined term 'supported' also leaves coverage gaps.

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% and the description never mentions repo_path or its expected form (path string, absolute vs relative, directory vs file). While the parameter name is fairly self-evident, the low coverage means the description should have compensated and does not.

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 (inventory) and resource (dependency manifests and lockfiles), and the trailing clause 'does not make vulnerability claims' carves out a boundary against the vulnerability_scan/security_scan siblings. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like cyclonedx_sbom, software_inventory, or dependency_graph, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'does not make vulnerability claims' implicitly signals when this tool is the wrong choice (vulnerability questions), which is better than nothing. But it never states when to prefer this tool, nor names the alternative to reach for, leaving usage to inference.

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