check_dependency

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.