Package CVE Check

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds transparency by naming the external data source (OSV.dev) and stating that it returns vulnerability details. This extra context is valuable, though not extensive.

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 well-structured: purpose stated first, then usage guidance, then parameter details. It is somewhat verbose (multiple paragraphs) but every sentence adds value, with no redundant content.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, full schema, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers input format, default ecosystem, and return structure (vulnerability count and details). No gaps in aiding correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters already described. The description adds concrete examples for the package parameter (e.g., 'express@4.18.2') and lists all ecosystem options, which helps the agent form correct inputs. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'a specific package for known CVEs', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on broader scans (like 'scan', 'fleet_scan') by explicitly targeting pre-installation package verification.

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 advises using the tool 'before installing an MCP server or dependency', providing clear context for when to invoke it. Though it doesn't mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

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