get_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, side effects, pagination limits, or error behavior. The full burden falls on the description, which is minimal and lacks any transparency about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely concise and to the point, consisting of a single clear sentence. There is no redundant information or filler, and it effectively communicates the core function without unnecessary verbosity.

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 lacks context about the output format, return type, or any additional information an agent might need to interpret the results. Since there is no output schema and the tool appears simple, some explanation of what 'dependencies' entails (e.g., list of objects, fields) would improve completeness. Currently, the agent is left guessing about the response structure.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is met. The tool description itself does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, but no parameter is left undocumented.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Maven dependencies'), and the source ('POM files'). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_dependency_tree', which could also return dependency information. Despite this, the purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it contrast with siblings like 'get_dependency_tree' or 'find_dependents'. No usage conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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