dep_audit_lockfile

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

The description discloses that the tool parses lockfiles and lists dependencies, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, though the absence of destructive hints in annotations supports this. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description mentions 'list all dependencies with versions' and 'dependency tree overview', which gives a general idea but lacks specifics about output format or structure. For a parsing tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 documents 'path' as a project directory. The description adds context that the tool looks for specific lockfile formats (package-lock.json v2/v3, bun.lock) inside that directory, enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema description.

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 it parses specific lockfile formats (package-lock.json v2/v3, bun.lock) and lists dependencies with versions, providing a dependency tree overview. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dep_check_deprecated or dep_check_license which perform different analyses.

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 implies use for manual review of dependencies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other dep_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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