midnight_check_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it compares installed vs latest npm versions and supports alpha/beta tracking. However, it does not mention network calls, rate limits, or that it is read-only, which could be inferred but not explicit.

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 concise with about 6 sentences and a bullet list of use cases. It front-loads the main purpose. However, the bullet list contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Check if dependencies are outdated' is similar to the first sentence).

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides moderate completeness. It explains the tool's overall function and use cases but lacks details on return values or how parameters affect behavior.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what each parameter does (e.g., packages, include_alpha, refresh, format). The use case list is generic and does not map to parameters.

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 for updates to @midnight-ntwrk npm packages, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with contracts, wallets, and docs.

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 lists specific use cases such as checking outdated dependencies and finding updates. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, though no alternatives exist among siblings.

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