dependency_advisor

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 1.00 USDC x402 charge on Base, the required AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY and MAX_USDC_PER_CALL guard, the GitHub API rate-limit fallback to source archives, the signed partial result when lookups fail, the single optional model call in auto mode, and the staleness of OSV/deps.dev data. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are captured by the readOnly/openWorld hints.

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?

Purpose, inputs and outputs are front-loaded before internals and cost, and nearly every clause carries information. It is nonetheless a single dense run-on paragraph bundling parser internals, data sources, fallback behavior and pricing, which hurts scannability and pushes the cost note to the very end.

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 six parameters, no output schema and an open-world, paid operation, the description covers what the verdict, risk score, findings and SARIF log contain, how failures are surfaced, and what payment entails. The remaining gap is minor: it does not describe pagination/limits on the returned findings or how large a repo can be before truncation.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates them (mode making at most one model call, files as an alternative to repo, ecosystem restrictions). It adds no syntax, format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Audits the dependencies of a public GitHub repo, commit or pull request' plus what it returns (pass/warn/fail verdict, 0-100 risk score, findings, SARIF log). An agent can tell exactly what it produces. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as ai_bom_license_resolver, code_preflight_kit or pre_merge_review.

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?

Usage is implied through the input framing (repo vs. uploaded files, ref defaults, the auto/deterministic mode) but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over an alternative or when it is inappropriate. The caveat that findings are 'leads to verify, not a certification' is guidance-adjacent but not selection guidance.

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