check_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains what data source is used ('GitHub Advisory Database'), what information is returned ('CVEs, severity levels, and patched versions'), and important prerequisites. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, followed by data source clarification, return values, and prerequisites in a clear bullet format. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context about behavior, data source, and prerequisites. It could be more complete by describing the output format in more detail or mentioning error conditions, but covers the essential operational context well given the complexity.

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 description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The description mentions lock file requirements but doesn't elaborate on parameter implications.

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 specific action ('Run npm audit'), target resource ('dependencies'), and purpose ('check dependencies for known vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'scan_codebase' by focusing specifically on dependency vulnerability scanning rather than general codebase analysis.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying prerequisites ('npm must be installed', 'Directory must contain package-lock.json'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives to the sibling 'scan_codebase' tool.

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