cve_package_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what output format to expect, or any requirements. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the terse verb 'Audit'.

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?

At two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It is not structured to convey useful information; every sentence (or word) should earn its place, and this one does not add meaningful value.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about return values, expected behavior, or how to invoke it correctly. The tool is likely more complex than indicated, and the description fails to cover even basic 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 one parameter 'package' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description provides no additional meaning about what 'package' should be (e.g., name, version, path). It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Audit package.' provides a verb and a resource but is extremely vague. It does not specify what kind of audit is performed, what a 'package' refers to, or how this relates to CVEs. The name 'cve_package_audit' hints at the purpose, but the description fails to clarify or distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or related tools like cve_search or exploit_search. The description gives the agent no context for selecting this tool.

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