pkg-booper-sniff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/analyze operation, but does not state read-only safety, network or registry access, authentication requirements, caching behavior, rate limits, or what the returned security signals actually contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though for a security-analysis tool it is arguably too terse to be fully appropriately sized.

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 and no output schema, the description needs to carry more context for a four-parameter security-analysis tool. It omits return content, analysis depth, caching implications, and usage context, leaving the agent with an incomplete behavioral picture.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The package and skipCache parameters are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, while version and compareVersions are covered only by the schema.

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 verb ('Analyze') and resource ('an npm package') and indicates the output domain ('security signals, facts, and indicators'). It does not distinguish this package-level analysis from sibling tools such as pkg-booper-big-sniff-file or pkg-booper-big-sniff-list.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Sibling tools imply there are related analysis options, but the description never explains which one to choose or under what conditions.

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