audit_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the risk flag criteria (CRITICAL, HIGH, WARN), sorting by commitment score, and batch size constraints (up to 20 packages). It lacks explicit read-only safety confirmation but is otherwise transparent.

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 well-structured with a summary, risk definitions, and examples. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly verbose in the examples section.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully explains input, output format, risk logic, and usage scenarios. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is clear.

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 specifies the verb 'batch-score', the resource 'multiple npm or PyPI packages', and the outcome 'supply chain risk' with a risk table. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform single-package lookups.

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 explicit use cases like auditing package.json or requirements.txt, and examples of applications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the batch nature implies it.

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