check_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it uses the OSV database but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it makes external API calls, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. Annotations would help, but the description is adequate for understanding the core behavior.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic usage. It doesn't explain return value structure, but in the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail (e.g., 'returns list of vulnerabilities') would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., that version is optional and omitting checks all versions). Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 checks a specific package version for known vulnerabilities using the OSV database. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('package version'), and distinguishes well from siblings like analyze_licenses or search_cve, which have different purposes.

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 usage when you need to check vulnerabilities for a specific package version. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools (e.g., search_cve for broader CVE searches).

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