Check Alerts

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

Annotations already label this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context about reading a cache file and providing instant responses, as well as a fallback suggestion to run a scan. However, it does not detail the exact output format or how stale cache entries are handled.

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 three sentences: purpose, mechanism, fallback. The example queries add practical value without bloating the text. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function, the caching behavior, the instant response, and the fallback when cache is absent. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter semantics, which are not applicable. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Show pending dependency alerts from the last background scan', specifying the verb 'show', the resource 'dependency alerts', and the source 'last background scan'. This distinguishes it from live scan tools like depsonar_scan and depsonar_live_cve.

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?

It explicitly mentions that it reads the cache written by the background checker (no live scan, instant response) and suggests running depsonar_scan or setting up the background checker if no cache exists. This provides clear guidance on when to use it and alternatives.

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