dependency_audit

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. It describes the tool's core behavior (parsing composer.lock, querying OSV.dev, reporting CVEs) but lacks important operational details like whether it requires network access, what format the output takes, whether it modifies files, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description provides basic functionality but misses key behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic functionality but lacks completeness. For a security auditing tool, important contextual information is missing: output format, error conditions, network requirements, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when vulnerabilities are found. The description covers what the tool does but not how it behaves operationally.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or edge cases). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('audit', 'parses', 'reports') and resources ('Composer dependencies', 'composer.lock', 'OSV.dev vulnerability advisory database', 'CVEs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on dependency vulnerability checking rather than general code scanning or configuration auditing.

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 context (checking Laravel project dependencies for vulnerabilities) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code_scan' or 'full_audit'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or when this tool would be preferred over other audit tools in the sibling list.

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