scan_licenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses lockfile metadata and the npm registry license field, avoids tarball downloads, and includes an advisory-only caveat. It implies a read-only operation via 'scan' but could further clarify that it makes no file modifications.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the caveat about advisory nature. Efficient and to the point with no filler.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of licenses, a report). It also omits details about network requirements when fetchMissing is true. Given the moderate complexity (5 params, optional network calls), this is a significant gap for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'fill gaps' which relates to fetchMissing, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('scan') and resource (package.json + lockfile) focused on dependency licenses. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like flag_risky_licenses and classify_license_string, which handle risk assessment and individual string classification respectively.

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 its use case (scanning licenses in a project) and mentions optional registry fetching, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over them. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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