Dependency Tree (deps.dev)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, ensuring safety awareness. The description adds context about returning all direct/indirect dependencies with versions and relation type, and reveals 'hidden supply chain depth'. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, returns, example. No filler words. Front-loaded with action verb. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is implicitly covered. The description explains the result comprehensively (direct/indirect, relation type, depth example). Could mention if there are pagination or size limits, but not necessary.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, only an example (npm/express). Baseline 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 clearly states 'Resolve the full transitive dependency tree for a package version', which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like advisories or package details by focusing on dependency resolution.

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?

Implied usage from the description, but no explicit guidance on when to use over alternatives like depsdev.insights.advisories or depsdev.insights.package. The example mentions 'supply chain depth', which hints at use for security audits, but not explicit.

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