frontend_security_frontend_security_audit_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and details verdict criteria and data sources. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers core behavioral traits.

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 informative and front-loaded with purpose and key details. It includes a feedback reporting instruction which, while meta, is useful. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 with detailed verdict levels and multiple data sources, the description covers inputs, outputs, verdict criteria, data sources, and side effects. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and return value.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'manifest' is the package.json content (required, 500 KB max) and 'lockfile' is optional and affects whether pinned versions or semver ranges are audited. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it audits a frontend package.json for security risks and returns a verdict. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities' which audits a single package.

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 explains when to use this tool vs. the alternative (single package audit). It specifies that the tool takes a full package.json and optionally a lockfile. It lacks explicit when-not conditions but provides sufficient context.

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