pkg-booper-boop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that results may be cached (implied only by the skipCache parameter), does not mention network/registry calls, rate limits, or behavior for nonexistent or unpublished packages.

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?

A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity is partly what leaves the behavioral and parameter gaps unfilled.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. It should at minimum explain the package identifier format and the cache parameter's effect.

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% across 2 parameters, so the schema contributes nothing semantic. The description mentions neither the `package` naming/scope format nor what `skipCache` does (cache bypass vs. freshness), leaving both parameters undocumented in prose and schema alike.

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: 'look up the latest version and dist-tags for an npm package'. An agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling retrieval tools (pkg-booper-sniff, pkg-booper-big-sniff-file, pkg-booper-big-sniff-list), whose names suggest overlapping package-inspection behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over the sniff siblings, which appear to be alternative package-inspection tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how it relates to pkg-booper-clear-cache despite the skipCache parameter.

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