scan_library_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations provided, and description lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, internet dependency, error handling for unknown libraries, caching behavior, or the format of the security report. Returns are mentioned but not structured.

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?

Extremely concise with only three sentences, yet includes purpose, arguments, and returns in a clear structure. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use among siblings and does not explain behavioral details or error conditions, which is acceptable given tool simplicity but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully clarifies both parameters: library_name with concrete examples and ecosystem with example values and default (PyPI). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it performs a vulnerability scan using OSINT sources, differentiates from sibling tools like snyk_scan_library (Snyk-specific) and scan_project_dependencies (project-level). Examples of library names and ecosystems provided.

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?

Implicitly suggests use when an OSINT-based vulnerability check is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., snyk_scan_library) or when not to use it (e.g., if offline).

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