Offense

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: the exclusion surface (no source reading, no test execution, no exploitability confirmation, no model key) and the requirement to retain and merge the original full advisory report across pages. It stops short of stating rate limits or result ordering beyond what the schema's planLimit already says.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the continuation protocol, with zero filler. Slightly dense with product-specific jargon ('Use Purple') that an uninitiated agent may not resolve, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description correctly focuses on the multi-call planning workflow and its constraints. Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly; only the nature of 'Purple' remains unexplained.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an increment by explaining the cross-call relationship between parameters — planning must be passed unchanged alongside the same sanitized files, and the full advisory report must be retained and merged. That operational contract is not fully spelled out in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: audit sanitized npm/pnpm dependency metadata for known advisory matches and checked upgrade paths. The scope (advisory matching plus upgrade path checking, no source reading) is precise enough that an agent knows exactly what work this performs, and there are no siblings to confuse it with.

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?

Gives explicit continuation guidance: resume deferred targets with remediation.planning.next while retaining the full scan, and the schema-level planning description reiterates using it unchanged with the same sanitized files. It also names what the tool does not do (read source, run tests, edit files, confirm exploitability, use a model key), which is strong negative guidance, though there are no sibling alternatives to route between.

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