flag_risky_licenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'ADVISORY ONLY — not legal advice,' identifies the data sources (lockfile metadata and npm registry license field), and discloses network behavior with 'no tarball downloads.' This meaningfully informs the agent about side effects and limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action and target first, then the advisory caveat, then the technical method. Each clause earns its place and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 read-only analysis tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, caveats, data sources, and network behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe the output/return format, and there is no output schema, but the verb 'Flag' sufficiently implies a list of flagged items for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds some relevant context around registry lookups, which aligns with fetchMissing, but it doesn't add meaningful detail about projectDir or includeDev beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb, 'Flag,' and a precise resource scope: 'GPL/AGPL/LGPL-family and unknown licenses.' It also clarifies the intended purpose, 'commercial awareness,' which separates it from broader tools like scan_licenses and from string-level tools like classify_license_string.

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 when to use the tool (when assessing commercial risk of licenses) and provides technical context about using lockfile metadata and the npm registry. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with the sibling tools or states when to prefer scan_licenses or classify_license_string instead.

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