vdb_scan_lockfile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool inspects transitive dependency risk and returns an `agent_action`, with REFUSE meaning do not merge. It stops short of describing other possible actions or side effects, but the key behavior is conveyed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the critical timing ('BEFORE merging'). Every clause adds context: the threat model, what to pass, format examples, and the actionable result.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the scenario, input mode, and the key return value. It does not exhaustively list all lockfile formats or other possible agent_action values, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds useful examples of supported lockfile formats and reinforces that filename drives format detection, but it does not add much per-parameter meaning beyond the 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 states a specific action ('scan the resolved lockfile') and a clear resource with timing ('BEFORE merging'). It also distinguishes the tool from package-level checks by explicitly calling out transitive dependencies, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context: use before merging to audit transitive dependencies, and tells the agent to pass file contents. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the contrast with 'checking the packages someone chose' makes the selection rationale clear.

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