analyze_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Analyze') but does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects (e.g., modifies files, requires network access). For a tool that likely only reads files, this is a gap in transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the target and the value, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose at a glance.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it analyzes. It does not cover the output format, but since no output schema is provided, that is not required. The description alone is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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 already provides a clear description for projectPath ('Absolute or relative path to the Node.js project to analyze'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it only contextualizes the parameter by mentioning the files that will be examined, which is marginal.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Analyze'), a precise resource ('package.json and lockfile'), and a concrete goal ('dependency hygiene issues including unused and misclassified packages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_project or analyze_database_queries by naming the exact files and intent, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when dependency hygiene is the concern), but it does not explicitly state exclusions or reference alternative tools. There is no 'use this instead of X when...' guidance, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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