dependency_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond annotations: it reads from npm lockfile v2/v3 only and requires no network — but it does not say what happens for v1 lockfiles, missing lockfile, or non-npm projects.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses — what it reads, then the constraint — with zero filler.

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 single-param read tool with full annotations, the core is covered, but there is no output shape description (no output schema exists), no default-path behavior, and no note on lockfile-version or error handling.

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?

One parameter (projectPath) with 0% schema description coverage and no required fields; the description never mentions the parameter or whether it defaults to the current directory. With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads declared dependencies and exact installed versions from npm lockfile v2/v3. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (audit, outdated, health) by naming its data source and scope.

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 usage (when you need declared/installed versions from a lockfile) and the 'No network' note hints at a local-source constraint, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over dependency_audit or dependency_outdated.

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