check_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool makes external API calls, has rate limits, or side effects. The description focuses solely on parameters and input format.

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 lead sentence and an 'Args:' list format. Every sentence adds value, and the structure allows quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 and the tool's relative simplicity, the description adequately covers parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings.

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 0%, meaning the input schema only provides types and default values. The description compensates by detailing all four parameters with example values and explanations, fully adding meaning beyond the structured 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 'Check a single package for known vulnerabilities', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_lockfile or check_alerts that handle multiple packages or different actions.

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 for individual packages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like scan_project or lookup_cve. No alternative recommendations or exclusions are provided.

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