Auto-Scan Project Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds context: reads specific config files, fetches best practices for dependencies, lists unrecognized dependencies separately. No contradiction. Could mention output format or rate limits but sufficient.

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?

Four sentences: purpose, file list, usage alternative, edge case. Each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action. No fluff.

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?

Covers what files are read, what happens with dependencies, how to invoke, alternative tool, and edge case. No output schema, but description gives enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. Could mention return value structure.

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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in schema (100% coverage). Description adds little beyond the schema descriptions, only implicitly connecting projectPath to file reading. 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 'Automatically detect all dependencies in a project and fetch latest best practices for each', and specifically distinguishes from sibling 'gt_audit' by directing source code scanning to that tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for dependency scanning and best practices, and provides an alternative: 'to scan your own source code for issues, use gt_audit instead'. Also notes that unrecognized dependencies are listed separately and never fail.

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