dep_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Scan' signals a read-oriented, non-mutating operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose whether external calls are made, what api_key is used for, whether files can be modified, or what happens after the scan completes.

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 an eleven-word single sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It communicates the full scope of the tool without repeating schema fields or annotations.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what a successful call returns, whether the scan is read-only, or whether api_key is required for vulnerability data access. It is enough to invoke the tool with a directory, but it does not set clear expectations for results or side effects.

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 already documents 'directory' and 'package_manager' with descriptions and an enum, but the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. The api_key parameter has no schema description and is not explained anywhere, leaving a real semantic gap for an optional but potentially important input.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan'), a resource ('project dependencies'), and three concrete audit dimensions: known vulnerabilities, outdated packages, and license issues. This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like dep_outdated or dep_license_check.

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 gives no guidance on when to use dep_audit instead of dep_outdated, dep_license_check, or dep_update_plan. It also omits prerequisites such as a lockfile being present or network access being required for vulnerability lookup.

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