depguard_remediate

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

The description states 'Read-only: never modifies package.json, lockfile, or runs npm.' Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It also explains the grouping and sorting behavior, which is transparent about the tool's internal process.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then technical details, then usage guidance, and finally read-only assurance. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the output format ('Output is sorted by severity weight so the first remediation is the highest-impact bump'). It also clarifies the relationship to sibling tool depguard_audit_project. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'path' and 'targetLicense' auto-detection, but the schema already provides clear descriptions. The description adds value through behavioral context but not parameter semantics.

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: building a remediation plan for vulnerabilities. It specifies the actions (read package.json + lock file, run audit, group transitive under direct deps, sort by severity), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like depguard_audit_project that only audit.

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 says 'Use this when the user is staring at '100 vulnerabilities found' from npm install and needs to know which 5 direct deps to upgrade.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is strong enough to differentiate.

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