explain_dependency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires Maven or network access, how filtering works, or what kind of explanation is returned.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than ideally concise. It front-loads the core action but sacrifices essential operational details needed for correct invocation.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description is too sparse to fully support invocation. It lacks parameter selection guidance, prerequisites, output expectations, and any behavioral caveats.

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 only 25%, but the description does not compensate by explaining how workspacePath, coordinates, and jarPath relate. An agent is left unsure whether to provide coordinates, a jar path, or both, and the 'toon' format value is unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('filtered Maven dependency tree') and clearly explains the tool's purpose: to explain why an artifact is present. This distinguishes it from sibling search/inspection tools like find_jar or search_class.

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 phrase 'explain why an artifact is present' implies this tool is for dependency-resolution questions, but it never explicitly states when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool or exclusion condition is mentioned.

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