auditDependencies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no destructive behavior. The description adds that it supports multiple package managers but does not disclose important behavioral details such as what 'auto' means for packageManager or the reserved nature of maxAge (though maxAge is described in the schema).

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 very concise, consisting of three short sentences that communicate the core purpose, supported package managers, and relationship to a sibling. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the output format. It only says 'current vs latest', which is vague. Also, the description does not mention the maxAge parameter's reserved nature, though it is in the schema. Overall, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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The description clearly states the verb 'detect' and resource 'outdated packages', and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'getSecurityAdvisories' by noting it is a complement. The supported package managers are listed, providing specificity.

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 mentions it is a complement to getSecurityAdvisories, providing some guidance on when to use this tool vs that alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or detailed context for other siblings.

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