npm_audit_bulk

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

The description mentions a query operation (read-only) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The example is directly useful. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input well but does not describe the output (e.g., returns list of advisories). This is a notable gap for 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?

The input schema already describes the 'packages' parameter, but the description adds concrete formatting guidance with an example ('{"express":["4.17.1"]}'). This goes beyond the schema description, though schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('query') and resource ('npm security advisories'), and clarifies it's for a bulk set of packages and versions. It distinguishes itself from sibling npm tools like npm_package or npm_search by focusing on bulk advisory queries.

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 bulk advisory queries with an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deps_advisory or ghsa_package. No guidance on when not to use it.

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