security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: states read-only, no side effects, idempotent, 1-hour cache, and verified source (Google OSV.dev). This leaves no ambiguity about safety or repeatability.

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 dense but well-structured with clear separation of modes and alternatives. Every sentence adds value. Slightly long due to the inclusion of feedback instructions, but this is justified for completeness. Could be slightly more concise, but still efficient.

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 (two modes, batch limit, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: parameter behavior, output format summary, caching, source validation, and alternatives. The output schema handles return values, so the description is appropriately complete.

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 adds full meaning to each parameter. It explains the single-package mode (package, version, ecosystem) and batch mode (packages array), including the rule that batch mode takes precedence. This compensates completely for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch all known CVEs') and the resource ('open source package version or a batch of packages'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming specific alternatives (security_fetch_cve_detail, security_audit_sbom_vulnerabilities).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: describes single-package vs batch modes, max batch size (50), and when to use alternatives. Also includes a fallback instruction to call report_feedback if the tool does not meet the user's need.

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