check_licenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' and 'potential compliance issues' convey a read-only intent and the kind of findings produced, but the description does not disclose what files are inspected, whether network access is needed, or what the output looks like. It is adequate but thin on behavioral detail.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides concrete examples. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it says what is scanned and what kinds of findings are surfaced. It does not describe the result format or exactly which dependency files are considered, but these are minor gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the 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?

The schema already documents the single path parameter with 100% coverage ('Repository or project root directory'). The description's phrase 'declared dependency licenses' reinforces that the path points at a project, but it adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Scan') and a specific resource ('declared dependency licenses'), and it cites concrete issue examples (GPL, AGPL, missing license metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_for_secrets and find_dead_code, and separates it from audit_dependencies by focusing on license compliance rather than general dependency auditing.

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 implies the tool is for license compliance checks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over audit_dependencies or any other sibling. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and summary.

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