Dependency Scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only, no indication of what gets scanned (composer.lock vs. installed modules), no mention of network or auth requirements, and no note on whether results are cached or persisted. 'Using Composer audit and other tools' describes mechanism, not behavior.

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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. The trailing 'and other tools' is vague filler that adds little, but the description is otherwise tight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the schema side is trivially complete. Still, for an unannotated scan tool the description should indicate what is scanned and whether the operation is safe/read-only; those gaps leave it only minimally adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scan dependencies for vulnerabilities'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like composer_audit or security_scan, which are named in the same toolset and appear to do overlapping work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over composer_audit, security_scan, or security_audit, all of which are siblings in the same list. The phrase 'and other tools' hints at a broader scope but never defines it or the conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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