audit-licenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states it flags conflicts and generates reports, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files, requires network access, or is read-only). The agent is left guessing about permissions, mutability, and output format.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key features. It contains no redundant information or filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 is adequate for a tool with one parameter and no siblings. It covers the core function but omits details about the output format of compliance reports (e.g., stdout, file) and any prerequisites. Given the lack of output schema, additional context on return values would improve completeness.

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 for the only parameter ('packageJson'), which already explains it is the contents of a package.json file. The description adds no further meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 audits dependency licenses for compatibility issues, specifically flags GPL/AGPL conflicts and generates compliance reports. It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource (dependency licenses), effectively communicating its purpose. With no sibling tools, differentiation is unnecessary.

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 for projects with dependencies and mentions specific outcomes (flagging GPL/AGPL conflicts, generating reports). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it provide alternative tools or context. Without siblings, the lack of guidance is acceptable but limits clarity for complex scenarios.

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