scan_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (scanning for dependencies) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema.

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 with just one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (4 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and language support, but lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral context, leaving gaps that the agent must infer from other sources.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions supported languages, which relates to the 'language' parameter, but doesn't explain the semantics of 'code', 'target_function', or 'ignore_custom'. This leaves key parameters unclear, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: 'Scans code for dependencies' with a specific verb ('scans') and resource ('dependencies'), and it lists supported languages (JS, TS, HTML, Python). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_integrity_score' or 'commit_safe_edit', which might involve related code analysis but have distinct purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions supported languages, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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