depguard_audit_deep

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes non-destructive audit behavior (crawl, aggregate). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the audit context implies no modifications. Adds value beyond schema with depth and aggregation detail.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second explains mechanism, third gives usage guidance. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key action.

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 transitive dependency audit tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context completely. It answers what, how, and when without missing critical information.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema; it merely restates the purpose. 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?

Clearly states it audits the full transitive dependency tree, distinguishing from similar tools like depguard_audit (likely direct deps only). The verb 'audit' and resource 'dependency tree' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Use when you need to know the total attack surface, not just direct deps,' providing direct guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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