dependency_auditor__audit_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not discharge it. It discloses nothing about network egress (KEV/EPSS lookups), performance cost on large trees, how unsupported or ambiguous projects are handled, or whether the scan is read-only.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with a clean ecosystem list; every clause earns its place. It is slightly list-heavy and omits any second sentence that could carry usage or behavioral context.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of the load for this multi-ecosystem scanner. It covers scope well but leaves behavior, egress, and result shape entirely undisclosed, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all three parameters (directory, exploitData, includeDevDeps) are already fully documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Auto-detect and audit every supported project in a directory') and enumerates the exact ecosystems and lockfiles covered. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-ecosystem siblings audit_npm, audit_pip, and audit_package without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the directory-vs-single-package framing and by the sibling names, but the description never explicitly says 'use this for multi-project/mixed-ecosystem directories; use audit_npm/audit_pip for a single manifest.' No when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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