dependency_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and specifies 'direct deps only,' but doesn't cover other important traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries external data.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying limitation ('direct deps only') that adds value without verbosity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured dependency data. It doesn't explain what the tree output includes (e.g., versions, licenses), how errors are handled, or any dependencies on external services like the npm registry, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Package name.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints like npm registry compatibility). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('dependency tree for an npm package') with a specific scope limitation ('direct deps only'). It distinguishes this from potential siblings that might provide full dependency trees or other package analyses, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (like 'package_info' or 'vulnerabilities'). The description implies it's for dependency analysis but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between available options.

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