dependency_auditor__audit_npm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does reasonably well: it names the OSV data source and explains the exact-versions-vs-range fallback logic. It omits output shape and read-only/rate-limit traits, but for a scanner the data-provenance detail is the most valuable part and is present.

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 purpose and threat source, then the file-resolution detail. No padding; every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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 read-only audit tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers data sources and file-resolution behavior adequately. Return format is unaddressed, but the core invocation requirements are satisfied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents directory, exploitData, and includeDevDeps. The description implies directory-based lockfile discovery but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 (audit), resource (npm dependencies), threat source (known CVEs via OSV), and exact file formats parsed. The npm specificity plus lockfile list clearly separates it from sibling audit_pip and audit_package without opening 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?

Gives clear context for when this applies: npm projects, with precedence order for lockfiles and fallback to package.json ranges. It does not explicitly name alternatives like audit_directory or audit_pip, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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