audit_project

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: deterministic, no LLM, versions from installed lockfile, advisories via OSV. It also explains the pairing effect on dependency classification.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by necessary details. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in the pairing explanation could be tightened.

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?

While the usage and parameters are well covered, the description lacks details about the output format (e.g., the structure of the verified result, how advisories are presented). Without an output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the files parameter as a {filename: content} map, giving concrete examples (package.json + package-lock.json), and clarifying allowed prefixes and value interpretations.

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 audits manifest/lockfiles together, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the pairing logic to recover direct-vs-transitive split.

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 clear when-to-use guidance, explaining the benefit of sending both manifest and lockfile, and that single-file works too. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like audit_dependencies or audit_repo, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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