check_dependency

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state lack of side effects, required permissions, or response format. The word 'check' suggests non-destructive behavior, but this is not confirmed.

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 sentence plus a brief parameter instruction, containing no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately actionable.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic intent. However, missing details on return values, error states, and whether it queries an external service reduce completeness.

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%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds only 'default npm' for ecosystem, which is already in the schema. Thus, minimal added value beyond schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool checks a package against a specific database of quantum-vulnerable dependencies. It identifies the unique resource ('quantakrypto's known quantum-vulnerable dependency database') and action ('Check whether'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_path or inventory_crypto.

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 instructs to provide 'name' and optional 'ecosystem', but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_path, inventory_crypto). No exclusion criteria or context for selection is provided.

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