audit_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans manifests and queries the OSV.dev database (implying network usage), but does not state prerequisites (e.g., file access), potential failures, or performance characteristics.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It first defines the action and scope, then provides usage context. Every word serves a purpose.

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 output schema exists, the agent can infer return format. The description covers input, purpose, and context. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling (e.g., if path is invalid or manifests missing).

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% as the only parameter 'path' has a description. The tool description reemphasizes that the path should point to a project directory containing manifests, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool scans project dependency manifests and reports vulnerabilities from OSV.dev, specifying which manifest files are checked. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool check_package, which likely focuses on a single package.

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 good usage guidance: 'Use before deploying, reviewing, or adopting a codebase.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like check_package for single-package checks.

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