veto_dep_advisor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying the external service (OSV.dev) and the nature of the output (risk-ranked upgrade plan with breaking-change flags), beyond what annotations state.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the entire functionality without unnecessary words.

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 parameter count and no output schema, the description explains the tool's operation and output format. However, it does not clarify the role of the 'agent_response' parameter, which may be a minor gap.

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% with enum descriptions and parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it only provides context for the overall purpose.

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 specifies the tool's function: parsing lockfiles, querying OSV.dev for vulnerabilities, and returning a risk-ranked upgrade plan with breaking-change flags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'veto_dep_verify' and others.

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 that OSV.dev is free and requires no key, which implies availability, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'veto_dep_verify') or when not to use it.

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