list_dependencies

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: pagination cap (50 rows, `more` counts the rest), response wrapping (`data` holds the response), and a security warning that `untrusted_fields` must be treated as data, not instructions. This is exactly the kind of context the description should supply.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: auth requirement, scope, examples, pagination, and response wrapping/untrusted fields. The ordering is logical (purpose first, then behavior), though the second sentence is a bit run-on and could be clearer without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response envelope, pagination, and the security-sensitive `untrusted_fields`. It references get_agent_dependencies for the standard fields rather than listing them explicitly, which is acceptable if that sibling's documentation is accessible, but it leaves a small gap for an agent that needs the full field list.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (kind and range), including enum meanings and the range overlap behavior. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: list all dependencies called by the project's agents, aggregated across agents, with call counts and caller agents. It also names the sibling tool it relates to (get_agent_dependencies) and gives concrete example questions ('what calls postgres', 'which agents use this model'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly gives use cases and implies a distinction from get_agent_dependencies by noting the same figures plus agents. It also mentions the required API key scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct the agent to a specific alternative, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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