deptry_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the kinds of dependency problems detected, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as whether it scans manifests, lockfiles, or the current environment. Given the strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, tautology, or repetition of schema or annotation details. Every word adds meaning.

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?

The tool's core purpose is clear and the output schema plus read-only annotations help, but the complete opacity of the parameters is a significant gap. An agent can call it with defaults confidently, but cannot correctly use path scoping or the changed_only option without guessing.

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% for the two parameters, and the description provides no explanation of 'paths' or 'changed_only'. An agent has no basis for understanding what values to pass, what paths should point to, or how the 'changed_only' flag alters behavior.

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 ('Find') and identifies four distinct dependency issue categories (missing, unused, obsolete, misplaced), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like ruff_check, ty_check, and bandit_check, which cover different domains.

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 the tool is for scanning dependencies for the listed issue types, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of how it relates to sibling tools such as ruff_check or vulture_check.

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