scan_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it scans lockfiles/manifests and uses osv-scanner, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as file modification, network access needs, or if it requires the scanner to be installed. 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: first states purpose and scope, second adds implementation detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description could clarify return values. It does not explain how results are presented or how this tool fits with sibling scanners. Missing integration guidance.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions for path and severity_threshold. It mentions SCA but does not elaborate parameter usage or constraints.

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 scans lockfiles and manifests for vulnerable dependencies, using SCA, and specifies the tool it uses (osv-scanner). This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_secrets or scan_code.

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 mentions the use of osv-scanner but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_all or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than clarified.

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