audit_package_security

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It explains the two actions but does not disclose potential limitations or side effects beyond the read-only nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with a clear introduction, bullet-like list of actions, examples, and a warning. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the examples could be more streamlined for brevity.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and actions but does not explain the output or the optional parameter 'package_info' in detail. With no output schema, more information about return values would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds value by providing examples and explaining the two actions in context. It clarifies the relationship between action and the optional parameters, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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: a comprehensive security audit for AUR packages, listing two specific actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on AUR package security, unlike other audit tools that analyze system configuration or check database freshness.

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 examples and a warning ('Always audit AUR packages before installing'), implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives like search_aur for basic info.

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