dependency_auditor__audit_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about what an audit returns, whether it makes network/registry calls, whether it is read-only or cached, or how long it takes. Some behavioral nuance (exploitData sends CVE IDs, KEV/EPSS enrichment) exists only 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 no filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise given a mutation-adjacent audit operation with four parameters.

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, no output schema, and a one-line description, an agent cannot know what the audit produces (vulnerability list? severity ordering? KEV/EPSS flags?), how results are structured, or what differentiates a package audit from the ecosystem-specific siblings.

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 ecosystem enum and the exploitData toggle, are documented in the schema itself. The description merely repeats the three required parameter names and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 and resource — 'Audit a single package' — and names the three identifying dimensions. It implicitly separates itself from audit_directory by scoping to one package, but does not distinguish itself from the more specific siblings audit_npm and audit_pip, leaving ambiguity about which of the three to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives. An agent choosing between audit_package, audit_npm, audit_pip, and audit_directory gets no routing help from the description.

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