security_audit_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Runs', which implies an action, but does not specify whether it is read-only, whether it modifies files, requires permissions, or produces side effects. This lack of detail is inadequate for a security 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is efficiently worded, though slightly vague terms like 'attack path mapping' could be elaborated without compromising conciseness.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what OSV analysis entails, expected outputs, prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the 'lockfilePath' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to explicitly connect it to the analysis, leaving the agent without added semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('OSV vulnerability analysis and attack path mapping'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like dependency_blast_radius or open_dependency_visualizer. The mention of OSV and attack path mapping makes the tool's focus unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dependency_blast_radius or dependency_upgrade_analysis. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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