depguard_audit_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what is scanned (direct deps, transitive deps, packageManager) and output (consolidated report). Does not explicitly state read-only, but implies no side effects. Adequate for an audit tool.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action, then usage context. Perfectly concise.

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 no output schema, description gives a fair idea of return (consolidated report). Could specify report format, but adequate for expected behavior. Covers all key aspects.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage. Description adds context: says parameters are used and mentions auto-detection of targetLicense. Provides a bit more meaning beyond schema, improving clarity.

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 tool audits ALL dependencies in a project at once, including direct, transitive, and packageManager field. It distinguishes from sibling tools like depguard_audit (single package) and depguard_audit_deep (possibly deeper scan) by emphasizing 'ALL' and 'project' scope.

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 this when the user asks to review project security or after cloning a new repo', providing clear context. Could also mention alternatives explicitly, but the guidance is sufficient.

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