Check dependencies for known CVEs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific behavioral traits: queries real, current CVE data, and sends only package names/versions (privacy guarantee). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) with front-loaded action verb 'Query'. Every sentence adds value: purpose, method, privacy, data freshness, and usage guidance. No redundant information.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, how it works, privacy, and how to use results. No gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not add further semantics for the single parameter 'path'. The schema already documents its purpose and default behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Query OSV.dev'), the resource ('locked dependencies'), and the specificity ('using exact versions from package-lock.json'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_project' by focusing on CVE vulnerabilities in locked dependencies.

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 implies when to use (to check for CVEs in lockfile) and provides guidance on privacy ('Only package names and versions are sent'). It suggests using results in security assessment. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives.

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