scan_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions recursive scanning and external database lookup (OSV.dev) but fails to state whether network access is required, whether the operation is read-only, or how failures are handled. Important behavioral details are missing for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's full functionality. Every clause adds value (scan type, target files, actions, data source). No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers core function but omits output format (no output schema provided) and important behavioral context like network requirements or error behavior. For a tool with many siblings, it lacks explicit differentiation and return value description.

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% with each parameter having a brief description. The description adds meaning by explaining the overall purpose (vulnerability checking) and listing concrete manifest file examples, which helps an agent understand the tool's context beyond raw parameter names.

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 action (recursively scan), resource (directory for manifest/lockfiles), and outcome (parse dependencies and check for known vulnerabilities using OSV.dev). It lists specific manifest files, making the tool's scope precise and distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_file or scan_code.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., check_dependencies, scan_directory). The description implies its use for dependency vulnerability scanning but does not provide exclusions or compare with siblings. Usage context is inferred but not clearly laid out.

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