audit_project

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.