scan_installed_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it enumerates exactly which files are read (.dist-info/METADATA, *.whl names, node_modules package.json), states that packages are never imported or executed, discloses that the network is used only for vulnerability lookup and only package names/versions are transmitted, mentions offline mode (GVSKB_MODE=offline), and notes licenses are returned only here.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction and well organized into a bulleted list of installation traces. It is somewhat long, with some detail that overlaps the schema's enum documentation, but nearly every sentence carries useful disambiguation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers behavior, side effects, network/privacy posture, and sibling differentiation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 path, limit, and env_grade (including the E0/E1/E2 meanings and cooldown semantics). The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (scan) and resource (actually-installed packages, including transitive dependencies), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling scan_dependencies, which only reads manifest files. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (scan_dependencies) and the gap it covers (transitive dependencies missing from requirements.txt/package.json), which is clear routing guidance. It does not spell out explicit exclusions or when this tool would be the wrong choice, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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