audit_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only domain framing ('source redistribution') and discloses nothing behavioral: not what the audit checks, what happens when license/noticeIncluded is missing, or whether results are findings versus pass/fail.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, and the object of the audit (versions plus license evidence) is front-loaded. Nothing in the sentence is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

For a tool accepting up to 100 dependency records with undocumented nested fields and no output schema, the description should explain what the audit validates and what it returns. It leaves the agent without enough context to prepare inputs correctly or interpret results.

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 0% and the single parameter is an array of objects whose fields (name, license, version, noticeIncluded) have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by naming 'versions' and 'license evidence', but it omits noticeIncluded entirely and gives no format, defaults, or handling for missing entries.

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?

States a specific verb (review/audit) and resource (supplied dependency versions plus recorded license evidence), which is enough for an agent to know this audits dependency licensing. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like review_licensing or check_media_provenance, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite obvious overlap with review_licensing, validate_asset_manifest, and check_media_provenance. The phrase 'for source redistribution' hints at intent but gives no selection criteria.

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