analyze_bundle_deps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does indicate a read-only-style analysis that classifies dependencies and surfaces warnings. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, output shape, or what exactly constitutes a warning, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the resource, the classification behavior, and the warning-surfacing outcome.

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?

For a zero-parameter analysis tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains the broad purpose but not the return structure or warning format. It is minimally adequate but does not fully specify what the agent should expect from the analysis.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a major concern and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: analyze package.json dependencies. It also explains the core operation, classifying Nuxt modules versus runtime/dev dependencies and surfacing warnings, which distinguishes it from simple module-listing siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of misplaced or missing module warnings, suggesting a dependency-audit use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_modules, get_project_overview, or other sibling tools.

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