depguard_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's actions: downloading tarball, scanning for malware, checking vulnerabilities, analyzing install scripts, verifying license. This gives an appropriate level of transparency for an audit tool. No annotation contradictions.

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: first introduces the tool and its actions, second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no 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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to use it, but does not mention output format or potential return values. Given no output schema, this is a gap. It also does not discuss prerequisites like internet access or expected execution time.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters. The description adds value for the 'version' parameter by explaining its purpose, but for 'name' and 'targetLicense' it does not add beyond the schema. 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 'Deep security audit of a single npm package' and lists specific actions (downloads tarball, scans source code, checks vulnerabilities, analyzes install scripts, verifies license). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like depguard_audit_bulk (multiple packages) and depguard_audit_project (entire project).

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 says 'Use when you need full details on a specific package' and provides guidance on version parameter ('Pass a version to audit a specific installed version instead of latest'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but context from sibling names makes it clear.

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