vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that this tool provides 'vulnerability info' and notes a limitation compared to 'npm audit,' but doesn't describe what specific information is returned (e.g., severity levels, CVEs), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or how up-to-date the data is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial limitation note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key limitation, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or deeper behavioral traits. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what 'vulnerability info' includes, but it doesn't, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Package name.' The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('vulnerability info for an npm package'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'package_info' or 'dependency_tree' by focusing specifically on security vulnerabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance through the note about 'Full audit requires npm audit in project context,' suggesting this tool provides limited vulnerability information compared to a full audit. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'package_info' or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity about its scope.

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