find_package_manager_abuse

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the find operation and examples, omitting whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This is minimal transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key examples. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks details on what constitutes 'abuse techniques', how results are returned, and any prerequisites. With no output schema, the agent has limited understanding of the tool's full behavior.

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%; both 'mode' and 'target_registry' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds the examples of techniques (e.g., 'npm lifecycle hooks') which provide context for the mode values, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 finds 'package manager abuse techniques' and lists specific examples (npm lifecycle hooks, pip setup.py, gem hooks, cargo build scripts), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other abuse types like token abuse or named pipe abuse.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. Usage is implied by the purpose: if investigating package manager abuse, this tool is appropriate. However, there is no mention of when not to use or comparison to sibling tools.

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