roslyn:get_nuget_dependencies

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (list of projects with packages, versions, asset settings) and implies it is a read-only query. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise, with the main action stated first, followed by succinct usage examples and output description. Every sentence is functional and avoids redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to call it, and what the response contains. It does not discuss error handling or limitations, but the context is sufficient for 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 100% with the 'projectName' parameter already described as 'Filter to specific project'. The description adds usage examples that demonstrate how to use the parameter, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists NuGet package references per project with versions. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_circular_dependencies' or 'dependency_graph' which have different purposes.

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?

Provides two usage examples (with and without the optional parameter) and lists explicit use cases: dependency audits, version checks, understanding external dependencies. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the examples sufficiently guide an agent.

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