audit_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it accesses external vulnerability databases, or what 'recommendations' entail. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or required context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient with no redundant wording, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 a simple signature, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what 'recommendations' look like or any important context (e.g., network dependency, return format). While the core purpose is clear, the lack of detail about outputs makes it slightly incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for packageName and version. The tool description adds no additional semantic depth beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks a package for known security vulnerabilities and returns recommendations. The verb 'check' is specific, the resource is the package, and the security vulnerability focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_quality or check_compatibility.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for security auditing, but it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as analyze_bundle_size or find_similar_packages.

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