check_package

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 data sources (OSV.dev, deps.dev) and the verdict range, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Assess one package before adding or upgrading it') and then lists specifics. Every sentence 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?

Given the 3-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's function and outputs effectively. It lacks details about error handling or behavior when 'version' is omitted, but the schema clarifies options. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for agent understanding.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description provides context for the overall task but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'name' and 'version'. The 'ecosystem' parameter lacks a schema description and is not elaborated in the tool description, so value is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('one package') and clearly lists the assessments performed (vulnerabilities, health signals, version, license, release recency, deprecation) and the verdict output. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'audit_project' by focusing on a single package rather than a project.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before adding or upgrading it'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with the sibling, but the single-package focus implicitly guides selection.

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