Check License Compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool scans and checks, implying a read-only operation, and describes the output as a markdown report. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., network access, installation) or failure modes when node_modules is missing, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 main purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently covers what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: scanning dependencies, policy options, and output format. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites (though the schema mentions path must contain package.json and node_modules), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the policy parameter with examples of presets and custom SPDX expressions, and by clarifying that the path should point to the project root with installed packages. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Scan a project's npm dependencies') and a clear purpose ('license compliance issues'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'explain-license' by focusing on scanning the entire project rather than explaining a single license.

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 checking a project's dependencies and mentions policy options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'explain-license'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, though the context is clear for a compliance scan.

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