security_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the key behavior of returning scanned=false with a reason rather than silently reporting zero advisories when the check never ran, which is crucial for an agent to interpret results correctly.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and includes important caveat about failure mode. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values fully, but it still highlights the scanned=false special case. With annotations absent, it fully covers behavior, scope, and parameter meaning. Complete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and one required parameter 'path'. The description clarifies that 'path' refers to the Magento project's path containing composer.lock, which adds essential meaning not present in 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 states a specific verb (Checks) and resource (every installed package in composer.lock), and distinguishes the scope from custom app/code and from sibling tools like outdated_packages by focusing on security advisories.

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 you should use it when you need a security audit of a Magento project, and it clarifies what is included vs excluded (core, vendor, dev, not just app/code). It doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs module_risk or outdated_packages, but the purpose is clear enough.

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