dependency_auditor__audit_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only says 'audit'. It never discloses that the result is vulnerability/exploit analysis, whether the call is read-only, what the response contains, or how the exploitData flag changes behavior. The safety-relevant context lives entirely in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy against the schema. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

A four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema gets only one sentence of description. Nothing explains what an 'audit' produces, how findings are ordered, or how this differs from the ecosystem-specific siblings, leaving the agent under-informed for correct selection.

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 four parameters (including the enum values and the exploitData default) are already documented structurally. The description adds no format, ordering, or semantics beyond restating the field names, so the baseline 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 (audit) and resource (single package) with the identifying dimensions (name, version, ecosystem). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the directory-scoped sibling, but it never names audit_npm/audit_pip/audit_directory, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given, even though sibling tools audit_npm and audit_pip are direct shortcuts for specific ecosystems. The 'by name, version, and ecosystem' phrasing only weakly implies this is the generic cross-ecosystem entry point.

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