scan_container_packages

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

The description explains that the tool uses OSV.dev and specifies input format, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or behavior under failure conditions. It provides moderate transparency but not full behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides structured details in an 'Args' section. It is clear but slightly verbose; could be more concise while retaining all necessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description adequately covers input specification and purpose. It lacks explanation of potential error conditions or performance characteristics, but overall is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing the single required parameter 'packages': format ('name:ecosystem:version' lines), examples, and supported ecosystems. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 scans container image packages for known CVEs via OSV.dev, with specific input format and examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on container images and using OSV.dev, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides explicit input format and examples, along with supported ecosystems, guiding the agent on proper usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, though the context of sibling tools implies this is the dedicated container scanning tool.

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