lpm_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses required authentication and CLI installation, and lists return contents. Could mention whether read-only or performance impact, but current clarity is high.

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?

Two sentences: first states action and resource, second lists outputs and prerequisites. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Simple tool with one optional param and no output schema. Description covers purpose, outputs, and prerequisite. Lacks explanation of terms like 'AI security findings' but adequate for typical agents.

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?

Only one parameter (path) with full schema coverage. Description adds 'Project directory' and default behavior, matching the schema. No extra semantic value beyond schema, 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?

Description clearly states the tool runs a security audit on LPM dependencies, listing specific outputs (behavioral tags, AI security findings, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools like lpm_quality_report or lpm_install.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisite (LPM CLI installed and authentication) and implies when to use (security audit). Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context from sibling tools covers this.

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