vulnerability_check

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

The description discloses the data source (OSV.dev) and the return contents (advisory IDs, CVEs, severity, fixed versions), but omits details like network dependency or potential failure modes. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavior reasonably well.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, explains version behavior, lists return fields, and gives usage context—all in three sentences. No unnecessary verbosity.

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?

It provides a clear use case and a summary of return fields, which is helpful given no output schema. However, the contradictory behavior for omitted version undermines the completeness of usage instructions, leaving the agent uncertain about the correct action.

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?

The description directly contradicts the schema for the 'version' parameter: description says omitting it checks the latest release, while schema says omitting it lists all known vulnerabilities across versions. This misleading guidance can cause incorrect usage, despite helpful examples for 'name' and 'registry'.

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 checks a package for known security vulnerabilities via OSV.dev, using the specific verb 'Check' and resource 'package'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning its use before recommending a package or auditing dependencies.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use before recommending a package or when auditing dependencies') and explains the optional version parameter ('Give a version to check that exact version, or omit it to check the latest release'). This provides clear guidance on invocation.

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