dep_check_install_scripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool detects dependencies with lifecycle scripts that execute with full system access, but it does not detail what happens when such scripts are found (e.g., output format, whether it scans all dependencies or only top-level, or if it provides remediation advice).

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and scope.

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 no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what the output looks like (e.g., list of dependencies, severity, etc.). It also does not mention scope (e.g., devDependencies, transitive dependencies) or any caveats. Given the complexity of dependency security checks, the description is 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 coverage is 100% (path is described as 'Project directory with node_modules'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema for the path parameter. No extra context like valid paths or format expectations.

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 detects dependencies with lifecycle scripts (preinstall, install, postinstall, prepare) that execute during npm/bun install with full system access. This is a specific verb-resource combo that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dep_check_deprecated or dep_check_license, which check other aspects of dependencies.

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 usage for security scanning of lifecycle scripts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dep_check_typosquatting or sast_code_execution. No 'when not to use' or context about prerequisites is provided.

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