security_fetch_package_licence

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

No annotations provided. The description states it returns a 'declared licence identifier such as MIT or Apache-2.0', which is a behavioral outcome. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, potential errors, or any side effects, which would be expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (simple lookup) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description provides adequate context. It explains the input requirements and the output format with examples. However, it could mention that all parameters are required.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description lists the parameters ('package name, version, and ecosystem') but adds minimal semantics, failing to explain what 'ecosystem' means (e.g., npm, PyPI). With zero schema descriptions, the description should provide more detail.

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's purpose: 'check the licence for an open source package version'. It specifies the resource (licence) and the action (check). Among sibling tools, none directly duplicate this function, making it distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other security tools like security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities. The description only says 'Use this to check' but does not discuss exclusions or prerequisites.

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