scan_dependencies

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions use of osv-scanner when installed but lacks disclosure on fallback behavior, side effects, or performance implications. Insufficient for a tool with zero 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, description omits what results look like (list of vulnerabilities?). Also missing prerequisites (osv-scanner installation). Adequate but incomplete for a dependency scanning 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (path, severity_threshold). Description adds no additional semantic value beyond stating the scope (lockfiles and manifests), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool scans lockfiles and manifests for known vulnerable dependencies (SCA), using specific verb+resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like scan_code, scan_secrets.

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?

Implies usage for dependency vulnerability scanning but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like scan_all or list_available_scanners, nor when to avoid.

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