Auto-Scan Project Dependencies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the specific files the tool reads (package.json, requirements.txt, etc.), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like network calls or caching, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 concise with two sentences plus a file list line. The 'Say "use gt" to invoke.' is slightly redundant for an AI agent but not excessively verbose. Overall, it's well-structured and efficiently conveys the key information.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides adequate completeness. It explains the core function, the files it reads, and briefly mentions the topic parameter. However, it could be improved by clarifying how the topic parameter affects results or mentioning that it is read-only (though annotations cover that).

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (projectPath, topic, tokensPerLib). The description provides general context but no parameter-specific enhancements.

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's purpose: 'Automatically detect all dependencies in a project and fetch latest best practices for each.' It uses a specific verb (detect, fetch) and resource (dependencies), and the sibling tools do not overlap in function, so it distinguishes well.

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 includes 'Say "use gt" to invoke.' which hints at usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided. The context signals list sibling tools, but the description itself lacks comparative guidance.

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