codesafer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool checks for, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies files, what format the results take, or any rate limits. For a security analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying what is checked (package.json) and what risks are identified (typosquatting, suspicious install scripts, dependency risks). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 that this is a security analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a risk report, boolean result, structured findings) or how results should be interpreted. For a tool that presumably produces security findings, this lack of output information is a significant gap.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter ('file_path') with its description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking package.json files for specific risks (typosquatting, suspicious install scripts, dependency risks). It uses specific verbs ('check', 'for') and identifies the resource ('package.json'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_file' or 'scan_directory' that might also analyze files.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'scan_file' (which might handle general file scanning) or 'ai_analyze' (which might provide broader analysis). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations provided.

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