Dependency check command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-litigate safety. It adds non-obvious behavior: the blast-radius semantics, that deleting a log line can silently break an alert, and (in schema) ambiguous-vendor errors and in-process vs bash-command fallback. The ambiguous-error and fallback behavior is documented in the schema rather than the description, so not a full 5.

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-loads the core action, then the mandatory pre-condition, then example developer questions and the framing payoff. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but not padded.

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 values needn't be explained. The description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and consequence, and the schema covers vendor resolution behavior. Complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly; minor gap is that the ambiguous-error case lives only in the schema.

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% and the vendor parameter carries a rich description (auto-detection rules, ambiguity error, in-process vs command fallback). The description itself contributes pattern-identity scoping but no per-parameter detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (scan/generate commands) and resource (SIEM/observability stack for dependencies on a pattern), and enumerates the target surfaces (Datadog monitors, Splunk saved searches, Grafana dashboards, Prometheus alert rules). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like log10x_pattern_mitigate or log10x_pattern_detail.

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?

Explicitly gates usage: 'Call this before any mute, drop, or source-code deletion' and gives developer-phrased triggers ('am I allowed to delete this log.info() call'). Names the consequence of skipping it, which is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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