check_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using an external database (OSV.dev) but does not state side effects, rate limits, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The output format is also unspecified, leaving behavioral traits largely hidden.

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 two sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the action and describing the input. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it omits important details. It earns a high score for brevity and front-loading core purpose.

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 has a single parameter with schema description, but no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by detailing the return format, side effects, and relationship to sibling tools. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about output and behavioral context.

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 already describes the 'dependencies' array with name, version, and ecosystem (including 'Go' and 'Packagist'). The description adds little meaning and is misleading by restricting ecosystems to 'PyPI or npm', contradicting the schema. It does not explain valid values or format beyond what the schema provides.

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 it checks package dependencies for vulnerabilities using the OSV.dev database, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'scan_dependencies' which may also check dependencies, and the phrase 'Provide a list of packages...' could be interpreted as describing the input rather than the output, causing slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_dependencies' or 'scan_file'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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