scan_hallucinated_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details both offline and online behaviors, including graceful degradation when offline. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or mention any permissions or side effects, but the nature of scanning is implied.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with clear sections for offline and online modes. It front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary detail without excessive verbiage. Could be slightly more concise.

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 three parameters are fully described in the schema and there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, modes, and recommended usage. It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the offline parameter's effect but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional value is provided for the other parameters.

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 detects AI-hallucinated and slopsquatted packages, specifying both deterministic offline detection and opt-in online registry checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling SCA tools by calling out what 'SCA misses' and targeting AI-generated code.

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 advises running on AI-generated code at PR time before 'npm install', and provides guidance on when to use offline mode ('air-gapped') or online mode. This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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