snyk_scan_library

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

With no annotations, the description provides partial behavioral information: it scans a library and returns a detailed report. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors. The output description adds some transparency.

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 but includes a structured 'Args' section that is helpful. It front-loads the main purpose. Minor redundancy with the schema is acceptable given no schema descriptions.

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?

While the description covers the tool's basic function and parameter semantics, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., Snyk account, API key), error handling, and usage constraints. The return summary is useful but incomplete for a security scanning tool.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by listing each parameter with a brief description (e.g., ecosystem as 'pypi, npm, maven') and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool scans a library using Snyk for security analysis, mentioning the return includes vulnerabilities, licenses, and remediation. However, given sibling tools like 'scan_library_vulnerabilities' and 'snyk_license_check', it could better differentiate the comprehensive scope of this tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'snyk_scan_project' or 'snyk_license_check'. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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