audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as network usage, return format, or the effect of flags like 'locked' or 'frozen'. It only restates the purpose.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no redundant words. It efficiently states the purpose and earns its place.

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 has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and interaction with parameters. Although the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke this tool appropriately.

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%, with all 10 parameters having detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description itself does not mention parameters, but since the schema fully covers them, it meets the baseline.

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 uses the verb 'Audit' and specifies the resource 'project dependencies' and the purpose 'for known vulnerabilities and adverse statuses'. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool_audit, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_audit, nor any context about project vs script audits or environment considerations. It simply states the function without any situational advice.

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