scan_dependencies

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

The description discloses that the tool queries an external database (OSV.dev) and parses specific manifests, implying a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it doesn't elaborate on possible side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with front-loaded 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?

Covers purpose, supported file types, database, and usage triggers. An output schema exists, so return format is not needed. Could add parameter details and error scenarios, but overall sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the 'path' parameter. It only implies it's a project path by context ('Scan a project's dependency manifests'), but does not clarify whether it's a file or directory, absolute or relative.

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 scans dependency manifests for CVEs via OSV.dev, listing specific file types. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_codebase (code scanning) and scan_secrets (secret scanning).

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 says 'Use this when asked to check dependencies for vulnerabilities or CVEs.' While it doesn't specify when not to use, the listed file types and context provide sufficient guidance.

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