npm_audit

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return payload (severity, CVEs, patched versions) and the nature of the call ('bulk advisory API'), which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 deliver purpose, scope, return values, and an alternative tool reference. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. The alternative guidance is front-loaded and the description is perfectly sized for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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 tool has one required parameter, a comprehensive schema, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use a different tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity; no further context is necessary.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter with a clear example and structure. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Quick vulnerability check for specific packages and versions' and identifies the resource (npm package advisories via bulk API). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling npm_audit_deep by stating what this tool returns and pointing to the deeper variant for richer detail.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for quick vulnerability checks returning severity, CVEs, and patched versions. It explicitly recommends npm_audit_deep when richer detail is needed, providing an unambiguous alternative and usage boundary.

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