pkg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the detection mechanism (lockfile reads). However it never distinguishes read-only actions (detect/scripts/list/outdated) from mutating ones (install/add/remove), nor warns about long install durations, required permissions, or network access needed by the underlying managers.

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?

Front-loads the core value proposition, then the action list, then the detection detail—logical and mostly waste-free. The 15-manager enumeration is long but earns its place by scoping applicability; overall 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers actions and detection well but omits return format, output truncation behavior (max_bytes), timeouts, and mutation semantics. Adequate but with visible gaps for such a broad tool.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the action enum and per-action parameters. The description's action list adds minor mapping value (run a script, list scripts, detect) but does not go beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (drive a package manager) and enumerates the exact managers and actions supported, so an agent immediately knows this wraps npm/pnpm/cargo/etc. rather than being another generic shell runner. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like shell_exec or proc.

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?

Explains the key selection condition: detection reads lockfiles so it picks the manager the repo actually uses, and manager can be forced. It gives clear context for when to reach for this over a raw shell tool, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or edge cases (e.g., no lockfile present).

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