scan_package

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

The description clearly explains the scanning scope (install scripts, prompt injection, etc.) and output format without annotations. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a read-only scan, it's transparent enough.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It provides enough detail without verbosity. Could be slightly improved by removing the redundant 'Returns score...' since that's implied by 'security issues'.

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 a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what is checked and what is returned. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 description does not add details beyond the schema for the single parameter 'npm'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the description's mention of npm package names with examples adds minor value.

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 scans an npm package for MCP security issues, specifying what it checks (install scripts, prompt injection, etc.) and what it returns (score, risk level, detailed findings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_abuse that likely focus on other aspects.

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 (scanning npm packages for security) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings. It lacks guidance on alternatives, e.g., using get_verdict for final decisions.

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