dep_security_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it uses npm audit with a fallback to the npm registry advisory API, and it describes the output (severity, affected versions, fix recommendations). Missing potential details like internet access requirement or prerequisites (e.g., package-lock.json), but overall good transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds method and output details. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. Well-structured and easy to read.

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 simple tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, mechanism, and output. Minor omission: it could mention that a lockfile is required for npm audit to work effectively, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter: project_dir). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantic information.

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's purpose: checking dependencies for known security vulnerabilities. It specifies the method (npm audit or advisory API) and the output (severity, affected versions, fix recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dep_analyze_size or dep_find_outdated.

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 usage for security auditing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No 'when-not' guidance or comparison with sibling tools is provided. The context of sibling names suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidelines.

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