check_dependencies

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

The description discloses the behavioral scope by listing the checks performed (uptime, SSL validity, blacklist status, trust score), which gives useful context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state whether the tool makes outbound network requests, is read-only, or has any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates purpose and key outputs without unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value, making it an excellent model of concision.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does and the nature of the checks. It lacks explicit usage guidance and operational details like network behavior, but the availability of the output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, so overall it is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema description covers 100% of the parameter 'endpoints' with a clear explanation and example. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning by framing them as 'external dependencies', but does not introduce constraints, format details, or parameter-specific behavior beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('external dependencies'), and enumerates the aspects of health checked: uptime, SSL validity, blacklist status, and trust score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_scan by focusing on dependency-specific health rather than general scanning.

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 versus alternatives. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests appropriate scenarios, leaving usage inference entirely to the tool name and sibling context. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or contrast with network_scan or scan_skill.

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