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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool scans and reports licensing risk and describes the return content, but it does not explicitly mention whether it modifies anything, needs network access, or has other side effects.

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 well organized with a one-line summary, clearly labeled Args, and Returns. Every sentence is useful, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 provides enough detail to call the tool correctly: both parameters are explained, defaults are given, and the return shape is summarized. Missing guidance about alternatives and side effects is a minor gap given the tool's read-only-looking nature.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has no parameter descriptions and zero schema coverage. It explains the path parameter's default and the full semantic meaning of each context value, including what each distribution model means.

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 scans a project's dependencies and reports licensing risk, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like check_package or generate_notices, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use case is implied: use this when you need to audit a project's dependency licensing. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer audit_project over check_package or generate_notices, and no stated exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It discloses output form ('One line per input with its verdict and the reason') and clarifies that the tool does not perform package lookups or project audits, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't explicitly list side effects or auth needs, but the operation is a non-mutating check and the main behavioral boundaries are stated.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then neatly organized into Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the examples are compact rather than bloated.

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 required names parameter is fully specified and the output schema covers return values, so an agent can make a default call. The main gap is the context parameter, whose valid values are only referenced through audit_project rather than described here. This keeps the definition from being fully self-contained.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates thoroughly for names with concrete accepted forms, SPDX-style expressions, and comma-separated/array variants. Context is only cross-referenced to audit_project rather than fully explained, but the schema's default and type still apply.

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 opens with a specific verb/resource pair and timeframe ('Check ... before installing'), then sharpens the scope by stating inputs are license strings, not package lookups, and names audit_project as the installed-project alternative. This makes the tool's role unambiguous relative to its siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('before installing them') and when not to (for actual installed-package audits, 'use audit_project'). The exclusion of project-directory lookups is direct, leaving no inference needed. generate_notices is not mentioned, but the main decision boundary is covered.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool writes an output file, scans a project directory, resolves relative output paths against the path, and returns the absolute path plus dependency count. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, destructive potential, required project state, or failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps for a file-writing 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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity—two optional parameters and an output schema available—the description covers purpose, arguments, and return value well. It could be more complete about the side effects of writing the output file or the exact nature of the dependency scan, but for an agent selecting and invoking this tool, the essentials are present.

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. It does: 'path' is defined as the project directory to scan, and 'output' is defined as the output file with relative path resolution behavior. This adds meaning not present in the bare input schema, although it could offer more detail about output formatting or scanning scope.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Write a THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md attribution document for client hand-off.' It identifies the verb, resource, and purpose, making the tool's role obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings audit_project or check_package, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for client hand-off' gives reasonable context for when the tool might be used, and the description clearly implies a dependency-scanning/writing task. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over audit_project or check_package, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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