slopsquat_scanner__scan_npm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does convey real behavior: it queries the live npm registry, splits findings into 'does not exist' versus 'first published very recently'. It omits rate limits, network/auth requirements, and whether a directory must be a package root — moderate gaps but meaningful added context.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the scope (which dependency blocks) before the two finding categories. No wasted clauses, though the em-dash construction and parenthetical definition make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 one-parameter scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is fetched, what two categories of findings come back, and why they matter. Only the absence of return-shape or failure-mode detail keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'directory' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description references the package.json location implicitly but adds no syntax, path-resolution, or behavior details beyond the schema — 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?

Names a specific verb (check/scan) and resource (every dependency declared in package.json) plus the exact four dependency blocks it covers. The slopsquatting framing and npm-registry grounding distinguish it clearly from sibling scan_pip and from the broader dependency_auditor family.

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 npm/package.json framing implies when to reach for this over slopsquat_scanner__scan_pip or scan_directory, but the description never states the condition explicitly, nor when to prefer slopsquat_scanner__check_package for a single name. Usage is inferable from the name rather than declared.

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