depguard_search

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

Without annotations, the description implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. It also lacks details on side effects or response characteristics beyond saying 'sorted by depguard quality score.'

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no superfluous information. It front-loads the core action and usage condition efficiently.

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?

While the description covers the purpose and a usage condition, it does not describe the output format or behavior (e.g., returns a list of packages with scores). Given no output schema, this omission reduces completeness for an agent invoking the tool.

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 schema itself documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 searches npm packages by keywords and sorts by depguard quality score. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like depguard_audit and depguard_verify, which focus on auditing and verification, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises using it when keywords are already known, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving room for improvement in guidance.

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