dep_check_licenses

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists licenses, flags copyleft (GPL) and unknown licenses, and checks compatibility. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (none expected) or required permissions, nor does it clarify the output format. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second details the output. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description provides some return value detail but lacks structural specifics (e.g., format of the list). For a simple tool with one parameter, the completeness is adequate but could be improved by mentioning the output format or compatibility checking details.

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 schema already describes the single parameter (project_dir) well. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond the tool's overall purpose. Baseline score of 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 uses specific verbs ('Analyze', 'Lists', 'flags', 'checks') and clearly identifies the resource ('licenses of all dependencies in a package.json'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dep_analyze_size (size analysis) and dep_security_audit (security), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users are left to infer from the tool name and description alone.

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