get_package_deps

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, destructive, idempotent hints. The description adds scanning scope ('scans package.json/composer.json/pyproject.toml across all repos') and return format, which is valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main function, usage guidance, and output format. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 read-only analysis tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, scanning scope, and return structure. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or performance considerations, but overall complete for typical needs.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 it does cross-repo package dependency analysis, identifying dependents and dependencies. It uses specific verbs and resources ('find which registered projects depend on a package, or what packages a project publishes'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'plan_batch_change'.

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 states when to use ('cross-project dependency mapping') and when not ('For impact of upgrading a specific package use plan_batch_change instead'). Also declares it as read-only.

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