Dependency Graph Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read-only analysis operation. However, it adds no further behavioral details such as output format, performance characteristics, or whether lockfiles must be present, so it does not exceed what annotations provide.

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?

A single, straightforward sentence that gets to the point immediately. No filler or redundant phrasing, and the key action and target are front-loaded.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite sparse and does not explain the output structure or what an 'analysis' returns. While the schema covers parameters, the overall user experience could benefit from a sentence about result format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The tool-level description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and identifies the resource ('shared dependencies and semver conflicts') across multiple projects, clearly distinguishing it from chat, model, and search tools. The wording is precise and actionable, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies use when dependency analysis across projects is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since no sibling tool overlaps with this function, the context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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