guardvibe

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

Adds context beyond structured data by noting 'Reads the file directly' (indicating local filesystem access) and specifying the OSV database as the CVE source. However, with no annotations provided, it omits key behavioral traits like whether it requires network access, if it's read-only safe, or caching behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action ('Parse... and check'), followed by examples and mechanism. 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?

Adequately covers input intent given 100% schema coverage, but lacks description of output structure or return values (no output schema exists). For a security scanning tool, omission of what the CVE report contains or error conditions leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces manifest_path with concrete examples (package.json, requirements.txt) but adds no additional semantic detail for format parameter beyond schema's markdown/json description.

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 specific action (parse lockfile/manifest and check for CVEs), identifies the resource (dependencies), cites the data source (OSV database), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying exact manifest formats (package.json, go.mod, etc.) that differentiate it from generic scanners like scan_file or scan_directory.

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?

Provides implied usage through specific file format examples and mentions direct file reading, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar sibling tool check_dependencies, or prerequisites like network access to OSV database.

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