scan_dependencies

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: uses a built-in vulnerability database, optionally runs npm audit, and no network required for basic checks. No contradiction with 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 sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds key details. Concise and well-structured.

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 a simple one-parameter tool with thorough annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its behavior, constraints (no network required), and scope (project dependencies). Output format is not mentioned but is implied by the scan nature.

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 single parameter 'projectPath' is fully described in the schema (absolute path to project root). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 project dependencies for vulnerabilities, deprecated packages, and security issues. It specifies the resource (package.json) and verb (scan), and is distinct from siblings like 'audit_security' which may cover broader security concerns.

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 use when checking dependency security, and mentions no network required for basic checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternative tools (e.g., audit_security, run_safety_check) or when not to use it.

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