frontend_security_frontend_security_fetch_package_risk_brief

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

No annotations provided, but description compensates by stating read-only, no side effects, idempotent, and listing sources (OSV.dev, deps.dev, npm registry). Could be improved by mentioning rate limits or failure modes, but sufficient for a fetch tool.

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 well-structured: purpose, details, usage guidance, behavior, fallback. Every sentence adds value. Slightly long but not overly verbose; could combine 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' into one sentence, but still concise overall.

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 params, no enums, and existence of output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, outputs, and sources. Includes fallback instruction to report agent gaps, adding completeness.

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 description fully explains both parameters: 'package_name: npm package name. Required.' and 'version: Optional pinned version — latest resolved if omitted.' Clearly compensates for missing schema 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?

Clearly states the tool provides a SHIP/CAUTION/BLOCK risk brief for npm packages with frontend-specific context. Differentiates from sibling tool security_fetch_package_risk_brief by specifying npm and added signals (weekly_downloads, is_ui_component). Distinguishes from other frontend security 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?

Explicitly states when to use (npm packages) and when not: 'Use security_fetch_package_risk_brief for non-npm ecosystems.' Provides clear context for selection among siblings.

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