guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully identifies the data source (OSV database), adding useful behavioral context. However, it omits critical behavioral details such as output format (what CVE data is returned), rate limits, or whether the tool fails when vulnerabilities are found versus returning a list.

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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core capability, while the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the input side but leaves gaps regarding return values and side effects. For a security auditing tool, additional context about what constitutes a 'check' result would be necessary for complete agent autonomy.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the three ecosystems ('npm, PyPI, or Go'), which aligns with the schema's enum, but does not add significant semantic depth regarding parameter syntax or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the action ('Check'), specific resource types ('npm, PyPI, or Go packages'), and exact scope ('known security vulnerabilities (CVEs) using the OSV database'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like scan_dependencies (which implies file scanning) and check_package_health (which implies general maintenance checks).

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 second sentence provides clear temporal guidance ('before adding new dependencies or to audit existing ones'), giving the agent concrete context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid when this tool isn't appropriate.

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