DepShield MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally discloses behavior. It mentions returning a 'full audit report' but fails to clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it makes external network calls to vulnerability databases, rate limits, or the output format (JSON vs formatted string).

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 sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Scan') and specific file types, followed by return value. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the basic operation adequately. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it omits important context about whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what structure the 'full audit report' takes.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'package.json or requirements.txt' which mirrors the schema's filePath description, and implies dependency scanning which relates to includeDevDependencies. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already clearly documents.

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 package.json or requirements.txt files for dependency vulnerabilities and returns a full audit report. It identifies specific resource types and implies file-level scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_dependency (which suggests single-dependency checking).

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 provided on when to use this versus sibling tools like check_dependency, deep_scan, or find_safe_version. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or when a user might prefer individual dependency checks over a full file scan.

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