dep_analyze_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a read-only analysis tool, this is a notable gap.

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 sentence that efficiently lists several features. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be broken into bullet points for better readability. No wasted 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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what the tool outputs (tree, depth, circular detection, count) but lacks behavioral context, prerequisites (like project_dir must exist), or any caveats. Adequate for a simple display tool but has gaps.

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 sole parameter (project_dir). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides (absolute path to project directory). 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 the tool shows the dependency tree including direct deps, transitive deps, total depth, circular dependency detection, and total transitive count. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dep_analyze_size, dep_check_licenses, etc.

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 usage for exploring the dependency tree structure but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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