check_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, what happens if the package is not found, or if it fetches from an external database. 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?

Concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear 'Args:' list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main function.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers the parameters thoroughly. It omits details about the output format, but the output schema exists, so that is acceptable. Lacks mention of error handling or performance considerations, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so well, explaining each parameter's meaning, providing examples for name and version, default for ecosystem, and behavior for show_all. Adds significant value beyond 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 the tool checks a single package for known vulnerabilities, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_project (which scans entire project) or lookup_cve (specific CVE lookup).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_lockfile or scan_project. The description implies it is for a single package but does not provide exclusions or contrast with sibling tools.

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