depguard_should_use

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the tool's workflow (check native first, then npm, then recommend), mentions up-to-date security/quality data, and implies no side effects. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential rate limits, but the safety profile is reasonably clear.

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 long, front-loaded with the usage context, and every sentence adds value. 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the three possible outcomes (install, caution, write-from-scratch) and the overall process. It covers the core functionality and context for a selection-advisory 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the general intent example but does not add meaning to 'threshold' or 'targetLicense' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 evaluates native vs npm package solutions and gives recommendations (install, caution, write-from-scratch). It specifies the verb (evaluate/recommend) and resource (package selection), and distinctly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing proactive use before picking a package.

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 to use this tool 'BEFORE choosing a package yourself' and to 'always prefer this over picking a package from your training data,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., depguard_guard) or specify when not to use it, missing some nuance.

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