deps_npm_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about executing 'npm audit --json' and explicitly notes that only the first 40 packages are returned, which is a meaningful limitation. It does not mention network access or error behavior, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 sentence conveys the command, the output format, and the truncation limit. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

While the output schema covers return structure, the description omits the meaning of the sole parameter and provides no explicit usage guidance. For such a simple tool this is a notable gap; an agent would not know what path value to provide.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'path', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'path' means, whether it points to a directory, package.json, or something else. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 names the specific command ('npm audit --json') and clearly states what it returns: severity counts plus the first 40 packages. This is a concrete verb+resource description that also differentiates it from sibling tools like deps_maven_tree or deps_python_packages by focusing on npm-specific auditing.

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 the tool is for npm dependency audits, and the sibling names hint at alternatives for other ecosystems, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus deps_detect or deps_github_advisory. Context is implied rather than stated.

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