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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond what it scans: it does not state that the operation is read-only / non-mutating, that no installs or lockfile changes occur, or that exploitData defaults on and sends CVE IDs to CISA KEV / FIRST EPSS services (network egress), which is a meaningful trait an agent should know before calling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action, the scope, and then the supported ecosystem/format list with parenthetical precision. No filler, and the enumeration earns its place by telling the agent what will be detected.

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 and no output schema, the description should hedge more than it does: it says what gets detected but not what a finding looks like, whether results are aggregated per project, or that external exploit data is fetched by default. Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for anticipating its behavior.

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 'directory', 'exploitData' and 'includeDevDeps' including defaults and the fact that CVE IDs are transmitted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair ('auto-detect and audit') and a specific resource scope ('every supported project in a directory'), then enumerates exactly which ecosystems and lockfile formats are covered. This makes it clearly the multi-ecosystem, directory-wide variant in contrast to sibling single-ecosystem tools like audit_npm, audit_pip and audit_package.

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 'every supported project in a directory' — an agent can infer this is for whole-repo sweeps rather than a single package. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named (e.g. 'use audit_npm for a single package'), nor is there any prerequisite or exclusion.

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