depguard_guard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool blocks hallucinated names, checks typosquatting, performs a security audit, and outputs allow/warn/block. There is no contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the mandatory usage. It is clear and complete, though slightly long. Every part is functional.

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, the description explains the return values (allow/warn/block) and the action to take. The tool is simple with 3 params, and the description fully covers the guard behavior and follow-up action.

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%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does not elaborate on threshold or targetLicense beyond what the schema already says. The description adds context for the name parameter by mentioning hallucinated names, but overall minimal extra value.

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: it is mandatory to call before npm install, yarn add, or pnpm add. It verifies package existence, checks for typosquatting, runs security audit, and returns allow/warn/block. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like depguard_audit, depguard_search, etc.

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 states when to use: before running any package installer. Also provides a clear behavioral rule: if result is block or warn, do not install without informing the user. This gives strong usage guidance.

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