analyze_licenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states analysis is for 'completed scans', implying it requires a finished scan, but does not mention if the tool is read-only, if it returns output, or if any side effects occur. With no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more expansive without becoming verbose.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the function and scope, but lacks details on return values, required scan state, and differentiation from related tools. It is complete enough for a simple tool but has gaps.

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% and the single parameter 'job_id' is described minimally in the schema as 'The scan job ID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, but with 100% coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes license compliance for completed scans, and specifies it identifies copyleft, restrictive, and unknown licenses. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like check_package or get_findings, though not explicitly contrasting.

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 implies the tool should be used after a scan is completed, but does not explicitly tell when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the job_id must refer to a completed scan. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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