security_audit_licence_compatibility

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses key behaviors: uses static SPDX compatibility table (no network for spdx_ids), resolves licenses via deps.dev (max 10 concurrent), limits to 50 items, rate limit 60/minute, no auth required. It also describes the verdict output.

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 moderately long but well-structured: first sentence defines purpose, followed by critical details and constraints. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Max 50 items' could be combined with rate limit). It is not overly verbose.

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 complexity of license auditing, the description covers input methods, behavioral differences between paths, constraints (max items, concurrent requests, rate limit), target audience, and a fallback mechanism. It mentions the output (verdict and conflicting pairs) and has an output schema available externally.

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%. The description explains the purpose of the two parameters ('Input package names (with ecosystem) or SPDX IDs') and differentiates the paths, but it does not specify the exact structure of the arrays (e.g., whether package names are strings or objects). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 audits license compatibility of dependency lists, specifies inputs (package names with ecosystem or SPDX IDs), and outputs a verdict (COMPATIBLE/CONFLICT) with conflicting pairs. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the static SPDX table and deps.dev resolution.

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 indicates use cases: 'For developers and compliance teams auditing open source licence risk before shipping.' It also provides a fallback instruction for using report_feedback if the response doesn't meet needs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling security audit tools or state when not to use this tool.

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