veto_dep_advisor

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

The annotations indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that the tool queries an external API (OSV.dev) and produces an upgrade plan, which is consistent with the annotations. It provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys core functionality without wasted words. It front-loads the key actions and output.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains the output (risk-ranked upgrade plan with breaking-change flags). Parameters are fully covered by schema. External API usage is disclosed. The description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. It mentions parsing lockfiles and ecosystem broadly, but the schema already covers the ecosystem enum with descriptions.

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 parses lockfiles, queries OSV.dev for vulnerabilities, and returns a risk-ranked upgrade plan with breaking-change flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings like veto_dep_verify by specifying the external API and output.

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 mentions 'free, no key' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like veto_dep_verify. Usage context is implied but not directly spelled out.

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