slopsquat_scanner__check_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the check is against a 'real' registry, but does not state side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. No return value or failure behavior is described.

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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's core action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core action but omits usage context relative to siblings and any behavioral details. Since there is no output schema, it should say more about what the check returns or how results are interpreted, but the minimal scope keeps it from being entirely inadequate.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ecosystem choice ('npm or PyPI') but adds no syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a single package name against the real npm or PyPI registry'), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like scan_npm or scan_pip, but the 'single package' scope provides implicit differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description implies usage for checking one known package, but it doesn't say when to choose this over scan_npm, scan_pip, or scan_directory.

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