check_package

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

The description explains the fallback logic and tool selection process, which adds transparency. However, there is a contradiction: description states check_vulnerabilities defaults to False, but the input schema shows default true. This inconsistency harms reliability.

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 well-structured with numbered steps, clear argument descriptions, and a return statement. It is concise yet informative, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 description covers the core logic and input, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks mention of whether the tool is read-only, and the default inconsistency reduces completeness. Overall adequate for a tool with output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: identifier format (PURL, file path), and the purpose and defaults of the two boolean parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 using intelligent selection, and lists specific actions (archive extraction, license detection, PURL registry APIs). This distinguishes it from general scanning tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 package files or PURLs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_binary or check_license_compatibility. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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