snyk_license_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns a 'License compliance report with risk assessment', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. Minimal but adequate.

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 concise, with a clear two-line purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the Args details into the main description.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no enums, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand basic usage, though it lacks examples or prerequisites like Snyk setup.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'project_path' as 'path to the project directory' and 'policy' with possible values in parentheses. This enhances understanding of parameter semantics, though it could elaborate on policy options.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'license compliance', using 'Snyk' for context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snyk_scan_project and snyk_scan_library, which focus on vulnerabilities, making the purpose unique and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly provide when or when-not to use this tool over alternatives. While the name and context imply it's for license compliance, there is no guidance on choosing it over other tools like snyk_scan_project or suggest_secure_libraries. Usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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