Dependency Score Tool

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that as a read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as using 'unknown' for unknown versions and the recommendation to stop code generation on low scores.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It contains 6 sentences, with some redundancy (e.g., 'use unknown for version' appears both in description and schema). Slightly verbose but still efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but it provides sufficient behavioral guidance (when to use, how to handle low scores, extra checks). The tool is simple with only 2 parameters, and the description covers usage context well.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces using 'unknown' for the version parameter, which is already documented in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided for the 'platform' parameter, but the description does not need to add much given full 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 'Get the dependency score of packages with the `depscore` tool from Socket,' providing a specific verb and resource. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'to scan dependencies for their quality and security on existing code or when code is generated.' It also provides explicit instructions on what to do when scores are low ('Stop generating code and ask the user how to proceed') and advises checking imports beyond manifest files.

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