check_dependencies

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the tool checks for CVEs using OSV database, but does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, what happens when a package is not found, or whether it returns only known vulnerabilities or also non-vulnerable results. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two short, clear sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage context. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of CVEs, severity, affected versions). Given the complexity of vulnerability checking, missing return format details reduces completeness. Could describe typical response shape.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented structurally. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what schema provides (e.g., listing ecosystems). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks npm, PyPI, or Go packages for known security vulnerabilities (CVEs) using the OSV database. The verb 'check' and resource 'packages' are specific, and the description provides actionable context (use before adding dependencies or to audit existing ones), distinguishing it from siblings like scan_dependencies.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (before adding new dependencies or to audit existing ones), but does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives among sibling tools like scan_dependencies or check_package_health, limiting guidance for selecting between tools.

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