scan_dependency_cve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses determinism, database scope, and cost (0.02 USDC on Base L2), and 'audits' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not state whether manifests are sent externally, what the response contains, or what happens if the manifest format is unsupported.

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 a single focused sentence with the primary verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a brief cost note. Every element earns its place with no redundant 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?

The generic input schema and absence of an output schema place a heavy burden on the description, but it does not explain payload format, expected return values, error behavior, or payment settlement requirements. An agent could understand the tool's purpose yet still not know exactly how to structure a valid call.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by indicating that the generic payload should relate to package.json and requirements.txt, but it does not specify the exact payload encoding, whether multiple files are accepted, or how the manifest should be provided.

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 action ('Audits'), a precise resource ('package manifests (package.json, requirements.txt)'), and a clear objective ('against deterministic national vulnerability databases for known CVE exploits'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling security tools like detect_secrets_leak or validate_code_syntax.

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 gives clear context: an agent should use this tool when it has a package manifest and needs known CVE vulnerability auditing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource scope is specific enough to imply when it applies.

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