Dependency Tree (deps.dev)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds the behavioral insight that it reveals hidden supply chain depth (e.g., number of transitive deps) and attributes to Google deps.dev. 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?

Two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the main action. No waste; every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned (dependencies with versions and relation types) and provides an example. Could mention prerequisites or error cases, but overall complete.

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. Description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but the output context (tree with versions and relation types) is implied.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Resolve', resource 'full transitive dependency tree', and provides a concrete example (express@5.2.1 with 67 transitive deps). Distinguishes from siblings like advisories and package info.

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?

Implies usage for dependency resolution but does not explicitly guide when to use this over siblings (e.g., advisories or package info). No when-not or alternative mentions.

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