Version actually installed in this project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses data sources (node_modules or lockfile), optional network behavior ('if online, how far behind npm's latest'), and configuration via env var. It doesn't mention failure modes or exact return format but provides meaningful behavioral context.

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: it opens with the core purpose, follows with a usage rationale, then practical configuration. Each sentence adds value and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what info is reported (exact version, range, drift) and how to set the project. It doesn't specify the return format explicitly, but the core information for correct usage is present. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the projectDir default and env var but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does clarify checkLatest's network call, which is a slight enhancement, but not enough to raise the score.

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 specific action: 'Report the EXACT version of a dependency that is installed in the current project right now' and details the source (node_modules/lockfile) plus additional info (range, drift). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_versions by focusing on the installed version versus declared or available ones.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: 'Reach for this BEFORE writing code against a library' and explains why (model training blends versions). It implies this is the go-to tool for installed-version queries but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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