frontend_security_fetch_package_risk_brief

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: states no side effects, idempotent, describes return fields and data sources (OSV.dev, deps.dev, npm registry). Lacks mention of error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient.

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?

Description is thorough but slightly long due to inclusion of report_feedback fallback instruction. Each sentence provides value; front-loads key purpose and constraints. Minor redundancy acceptable.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers return fields, safety status, and data sources. It also provides an error handling path via report_feedback, making it self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly defines both parameters: 'package_name' as required npm package name and 'version' as optional with default resolution to latest. Adds clarity beyond schema types.

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?

Clearly states it provides a 'SHIP/CAUTION/BLOCK risk brief' for npm packages with frontend-specific context. Distinguishes from 'security_fetch_package_risk_brief' by specifying it wraps that tool and adds extra signals (weekly_downloads, is_ui_component).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use 'security_fetch_package_risk_brief' for non-npm ecosystems, providing a clear alternative. Also notes idempotent and read-only nature, guiding safe usage.

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