DepShield MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it specifies the selection criteria (newest version with zero vulnerabilities), it fails to disclose error handling (what happens when no safe version exists), return format, or the vulnerability database source.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 11 words with zero redundancy. Every word contributes essential information about the tool's function.

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 simple two-parameter input schema with complete coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, lacking both annotations and an output schema, it should ideally disclose error states (e.g., package not found, no safe version available) to be 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully documented. The description maps the concept of 'package' to the 'name' parameter but does not add semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the ecosystem default behavior or valid values.

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 specific action (find), resource (package version), and constraint (zero known vulnerabilities). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_dependency or suggest_alternative that also handle security concerns.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_dependency or suggest_alternative. It omits prerequisites (e.g., exact package name requirements) and does not indicate when no safe version exists.

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