frontend_security_fetch_package_risk_brief

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

Description goes beyond annotations by clarifying the tool is read-only, idempotent, has no side effects, and lists data sources (OSV.dev, deps.dev, npm registry). Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and the description confirms and adds context.

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 concise and well-structured. Each sentence adds value: purpose, scope, parameters, behavior, sources, and fallback. No redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (2 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, return content, and error handling via feedback. No missing elements.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds extra meaning: notes that version is optional and resolves to latest if omitted, and calls package_name required. This clarifies behavior beyond the schema's parameter 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 the tool provides a risk brief for npm packages with frontend-specific context, including specific signals (weekly_downloads, is_ui_component). It distinguishes from the generic security_fetch_package_risk_brief by specifying ecosystem scope.

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 states when to use this tool (for npm packages with frontend context) and when to use the sibling (security_fetch_package_risk_brief for non-npm ecosystems). Also provides a fallback feedback mechanism via report_feedback.

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