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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The phrasing 'check ... before installing' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the check contacts a registry/network, auth requirements, or possible side effects.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation, states the resource, and enumerates what is checked. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string, no nested objects), and the description covers what it checks and when to use it. However, since there is no output schema, the description should say more about what the agent will receive back; 'health, risk, and cost' implies the result dimensions but not their shape or interpretation.

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 only declares 'package' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds meaning by identifying the value as a dependency such as an npm package. It does not, however, specify accepted formats (e.g. bare name vs. versioned specifier), so it only partially compensates for 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Check' and the resource 'a dependency', and it names the evaluation dimensions: health, risk, and cost. It also gives an example ('npm package') and a usage stage ('before installing'). It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly contrast this tool with its siblings suggest_alternative and get_policy.

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?

'before installing' provides clear usage context: this is a pre-install evaluation tool. It does not, however, state when not to use it or explicitly point to suggest_alternative or get_policy as alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself must convey behavior. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval, and the zero-parameter shape means there is no input-triggered side-effect risk. It does not disclose error or missing-policy behavior, but for a simple getter this is mostly sufficient.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action, target, and scope. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description is sufficiently complete: an agent can invoke it without further setup and can infer that the return value is the active policy. No additional prerequisites or edge cases are necessary to understand the call.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly identified resource ('active PkgDiet dependency policy for this repository'). This is distinct from the sibling tools check_dependency and suggest_alternative, which imply different actions.

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 implies that this tool should be used when the active policy needs to be retrieved, and it scopes that to 'this repository.' However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over check_dependency or suggest_alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and gives no indication of side effects, whether this is read-only, or what the output looks like.

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 concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded. The qualifiers 'lighter, healthier' add some vagueness but do not make the description bloated.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return format, input semantics, and behavioral context mostly unspecified. It is enough to guess the intent, but not sufficient for confident, correct invocation.

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 only references 'a package' without clarifying the expected format, allowed values, or examples. It minimally confirms that the package is the input, but does not meaningfully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Suggest') and names a clear target ('lighter, healthier alternative for a package'), so the tool's basic purpose is understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the intent is not ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_dependency or get_policy. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Suggest,' which is not enough for reliable tool selection.

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