dependency_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description usefully adds that it makes external OSV queries, mutates a cache of matches, and persists a reassessed report. It stops short of stating auth requirements or overwrite semantics for the cached matches, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the data source and the three effects with no filler. Efficient, though it packs three distinct actions without signaling their order or relative importance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover externality and safety. However, the combination of a mutation tool with a 0%-covered parameter and no usage guidance leaves the description short of what an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 report_id parameter (default 'latest') is never mentioned in the description. The text refers to saving a report but never explains that report_id selects which inventoried report is checked, leaving the key input ambiguous.

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 specific verbs (query, refresh, save) tied to clear resources (OSV package matches, a reassessed report), so an agent understands this checks dependency versions against a vulnerability source. It does not differentiate from siblings like audit_reassess or intelligence_sync, which is the only clear gap.

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?

There is no statement of when to invoke this versus alternatives such as audit_reassess (which also produces reassessed reports) or intelligence_sync. The agent is left to infer the workflow context entirely.

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