dep_analyze_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions using the bundlephobia API for minified and gzipped sizes, but does not disclose potential API limitations, internet requirement, or that it only covers production dependencies.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states the action, second explains the method. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and method adequately, but lacks details on output format or limitations (e.g., dependency on external API). Given no output schema, this missing information reduces 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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new information about the parameter beyond confirming it identifies the package.json location.

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 estimates total node_modules size from package.json without installing, using an API. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dep_analyze_tree (tree analysis) and dep_security_audit (security) by focusing on size estimation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want a quick size estimate without installation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to siblings, missing some guidance.

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