audit_package_security

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'security audit' label is consistent. The description adds details about what each action does (e.g., scanning for red flags, evaluating trustworthiness). However, it does not disclose whether network calls are needed for metadata analysis or other runtime behaviors. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, starting with a clear heading and bullet points for actions. It includes examples and a warning. Every sentence adds value. It is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a report, JSON, or list of issues). It does not. The tool has four parameters, including a nested object, but the description does not explain the return format or provide guidance on using the package_info parameter. The overall context is incomplete for a comprehensive audit 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds significant context beyond the schema: 'scan PKGBUILD for 50+ red flags' for pkgbuild_analysis and 'evaluate trustworthiness via votes/maintainer/age' for metadata_risk. Examples also clarify parameter usage. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 it performs security audits for AUR packages with two specific actions (pkgbuild_analysis and metadata_risk). Examples further clarify usage. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_package_integrity by focusing on AUR. However, it could be more explicit about differentiating from other analysis 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 implies usage before installing AUR packages with '⚠️ Always audit AUR packages before installing.' It provides examples for each action but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like verify_package_integrity for official packages. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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