get_package_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a dependency tree is fetched, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how depth/version/defaults behave, whether dev dependencies are included by default, or what the returned tree structure looks like. The schema covers some defaults but the description itself adds little behavioral context.

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, short, front-loaded sentence: 'Get the dependency tree for a package.' There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous content. It is concise and immediately states the tool's purpose.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain what the returned dependency tree contains, how depth affects the result, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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 input schema describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides clear definitions for name, depth, version, and includeDevDependencies.

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 resource ('dependency tree for a package'), clearly identifying the tool's core function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_package_info, but 'dependency tree' is sufficiently distinct to differentiate it from listing package metadata or readmes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_package_info or get_usage_snippet. There is no mention of scenarios where a dependency tree is useful, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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