depguard_audit_project

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It explains the scanning scope and output (consolidated security report) but does not disclose potential side effects, auth needs, or what happens if the lock file is missing. Adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: scope, scanning details, input/output, and use case. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what to pass, and when to use. Minor gaps like missing error conditions or output structure details, but sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description reinforces the 'path' parameter and mentions auto-detection for targetLicense and default for includeDevDependencies, adding slight value beyond 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 clearly states the tool audits ALL dependencies in a project, specifying what is scanned (direct, transitive, packageManager field) and expects a path to package.json. It differentiates from siblings like depguard_audit by emphasizing the project-wide 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 when to use: 'when the user asks to review project security or after cloning a new repo.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context and sibling list imply it's for comprehensive scans.

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