dependency_gatekeeper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only vaguely indicates a read/check operation ('Imports vs manifests', 'undeclared deps'). It does not mention side effects, permissions, reindex requirements, or output format. The schema hints at reindexing but the description itself is insufficient.

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 extremely concise, using a compact phrase that conveys core purpose and supported languages. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, though it may be too terse for full clarity, it is appropriately sized for the limited content.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values and expectations, but it says nothing about what results look like or how 'install hints' are presented. It also does not mention prerequisites beyond implicit reindexing. The description is too incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not provide specific parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states; it merely implies the file parameter is source code and workspace_dir is the root.

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 the tool's function: comparing imports against manifests to list undeclared dependencies and provide install hints, while listing supported languages (Py/JS/Go/Rust). It distinguishes itself by mentioning the relationship with guard_patterns, although it does not fully separate it from other siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Pairs with guard_patterns' hints at a complementary relationship, but there is no concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the terse description.

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