check_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds scope (exact version, ecosystems) but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. With rich annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: clear function, usage timing, special case for Gradle, and concise parameter explanations. No wasted words, front-loaded with core intent.

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 description covers core functionality and key parameters, but omits explanation for optional parameters (is_reachable, dependency_scope). Output schema exists, so return values are not required, but the gap on optional params reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains package_name (as name or groupId:artifactId), version (exact version), and ecosystem (one of three). However, it omits is_reachable and dependency_scope, leaving part of the schema undocumented.

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 an exact dependency version for known vulnerabilities, specifying ecosystems (Python, npm, Maven, Gradle) and providing an example for Maven. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_reachability and generate_report.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user asks whether a ... dependency version is vulnerable.' It gives clear context for invocation but does not exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, though the purpose is well-defined.

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