audit_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions returns detailed vulnerability info and generates reports, but doesn't cover performance, network usage, or prerequisites (e.g., Node.js installation). Some behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 packed with essential information. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, supported scenarios, and output types. Some details like environment requirements are missing, but overall it is fairly 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 descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds context (supports npm/pnpm, returns report formats) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 audits Node.js project dependencies for security vulnerabilities, specifying supported package managers (npm, pnpm), project types (local or GitHub remote), and outputs (vulnerability info and reports). This is specific and action-oriented.

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 when to use: for security audits of Node.js dependencies, with guidance on local vs remote repos and supported formats. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given no siblings, it's clear enough.

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