cve_package_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries the OSV database, supports version-specific queries, returns all known vulnerabilities if version omitted, and can auto-detect ecosystem. It does not mention any destructive behavior or authentication needs, which is appropriate for a read-only lookup 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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, an explanatory paragraph, an 'Args' section with clear parameter descriptions, and example usages. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no unnecessary words.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and examples. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema is available.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters (package, version, ecosystem), including examples of usage. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which lacks parameter descriptions.

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 checks a specific software package for known vulnerabilities using OSV.dev. It specifies the verb 'Check' and resource 'software package', and distinguishes from sibling tools like cve_search (which likely searches by CVE ID).

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 explains when to use it (to check a package for vulnerabilities) and provides context for optional parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools list suggests this is the appropriate tool for package vulnerability scanning. No alternative is named, but the specificity is sufficient.

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