veto_dep_verify

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral context about what is checked (age, downloads, deprecation, typo-distance) without contradicting annotations. This goes beyond the annotations to detail the verification process.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and what it checks. It is fully adequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 both parameters described. The description adds context that 'packages' are 'proposed package names' and mentions 'live registry (npm, PyPI, crates.io)' which loosely maps to the ecosystem parameter. However, it does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the 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's purpose as a 'dependency-hallucination guard' that verifies package names against live registries before install. It specifies the checks performed (existence, age, downloads, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings by providing a unique, specific use case.

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 explicitly says 'Call this whenever an AI suggests installing a package you have not used before,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use, although the sibling list includes veto_dep_advisor which may be related.

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