check_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', details the return structure with field names, and explains the meaning of status='skipped'. This gives substantial transparency beyond the tool's name, though it could mention potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature. The subsequent details about return structure and status meaning are concise and purposeful, though there is slight redundancy between 'Returns structured results' and the later 'Returns: list[dict]'.

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 tool with one optional parameter and a clearly defined output schema, the description covers the purpose, read-only behavior, return format, special status values, and parameter auto-detection. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, including auto-detection and explicit passing guidance. The description's parameter text ('Project root directory. Auto-detected from CWD if omitted.') largely duplicates the schema's description without adding new meaning beyond what is already known.

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 'Run the full dependency audit' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by noting it returns raw per-check dicts rather than the formatted doctor table. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from other tools.

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 explains the output format and that the tool is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The context implies it is for dependency auditing, but there is no comparative guidance.

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