scan_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analyzing files and finding vulnerabilities, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the scan is read-only or has side effects, performance implications (e.g., time-intensive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational risks.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main action ('scan... for dependency vulnerabilities') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from file specifics.

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 complexity of security scanning and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., vulnerability list, severity levels), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or constraints). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: scanning for dependency vulnerabilities by analyzing specific dependency files. It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'analyzes') and resources ('project', 'dependency files', 'packages'), making the action concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'scan_iac' or 'detect_vulnerable_endpoints', which might involve overlapping security scanning domains.

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 by specifying what files are analyzed (e.g., requirements.txt, pyproject.toml), suggesting it's for projects with such dependencies. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_iac' or 'detect_vulnerable_endpoints', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., project structure requirements).

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