contrastapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources are queried, rate limits, or what the 'check' results indicate (pass/fail, CVE list, risk 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?

While brief (three words), this is under-specification masquerading as conciseness. The single 'sentence' does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable information beyond the tool name itself.

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?

Inadequate for a tool with even a single parameter and no output schema. Given the security context of sibling tools (CVE lookups, injection checks), the description should clarify that this checks for vulnerabilities in software dependencies, but it provides no such context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'packages' parameter (array type with empty description). The description fails to compensate by not explaining what constitutes a 'package' (npm, PyPI, Docker image?), expected format, or what the array should contain. Critical semantic gap.

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 'Check Dependencies Endpoint' is tautological—it restates the tool name and adds only the meaningless word 'Endpoint'. It fails to specify what 'checking' entails (vulnerability scanning? version validation? license checking?) despite the security-focused sibling tools suggesting a vulnerability context.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'cve_lookup' or 'scan_headers'. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description offers zero contextual guidance for selection.

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