scan_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs scanning, returns vulnerabilities sorted by severity with recommended solutions, but doesn't mention execution time, error handling, permission requirements, or rate limits. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational details.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and technology, the second describes the output format. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 scanning tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what gets scanned and what's returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about error cases or output structure beyond 'listado ordenado por severidad'.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 when 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('escanea vulnerabilidades', 'retorna un listado') and resources ('dependencias del package.json', 'npm audit'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on dependency scanning rather than code vulnerabilities, secrets, or report generation.

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?

The description implies usage for dependency vulnerability scanning with npm audit, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_code_vulnerabilities or generate_security_report. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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