depguard_guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks package existence, typosquatting, security audit, and returns one of three outcomes. There is no contradiction with any hidden behavior.

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 a single block of text but is front-loaded with the critical 'MANDATORY' callout. It is dense with information and uses emphasis appropriately. A slightly more structured format could improve readability, but it remains concise and effective.

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's simple purpose (guard before install), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what the output represents ('allow/warn/block'). No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by explaining the return outcomes. The three parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant per-parameter details beyond the schema, but it reinforces the mandatory nature of the 'name' parameter. No additional semantic value is provided for 'threshold' or 'targetLicense'.

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's purpose: 'Verifies the package exists (blocks hallucinated names), checks for typosquatting, runs security audit, and returns allow/warn/block.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the pre-installation guard function, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'MANDATORY: call this BEFORE running npm install, yarn add, or pnpm add.' It also provides clear when-not-to-install guidance: 'If the result is "block" or "warn", do NOT install the package without informing the user.'

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