dep_check_mcp_sdk_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies files, or any side effects. It does not describe the output format or error handling. For a security check tool, this lack of transparency could mislead an agent into expecting side effects or missing output details.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. No wasted words; front-loads the 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on what constitutes 'vulnerable versions', how results are reported, and any prerequisites (e.g., requires npm/yarn lock file). It is minimally complete but could benefit from more context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Project directory' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Check', the specific resource '@modelcontextprotocol/sdk version', and the purpose (against vulnerable versions and latest features like OAuth 2.1). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'dep_check_deprecated' and 'dep_check_typosquatting'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no context for prerequisites (e.g., requires the SDK to be installed). It simply states what it does without usage context.

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