slopsquat_scanner__scan_npm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: it queries the live npm registry (implying network I/O) and reports two distinct finding categories. It stops short of stating prerequisites (package.json must exist at the path), failure behavior on registry errors or private/unpublished scoped packages, or performance/rate considerations for large manifests.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource before the parenthetical explanation of slopsquatting. The em-dash aside is informative rather than padding, though the sentence is long enough that a reader must re-parse it once.

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 scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what is being checked and what kinds of issues are surfaced, which is the essential context. It omits how findings are reported and what the agent should do with a 'recently published' warning, leaving a gap for a security tool whose output drives decisions.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to the directory containing package.json'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the implicit constraint that a package.json must live in that directory, which is a marginal gain, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Check every dependency declared in a package.json') and states the exact detection goal — non-existent package names ('slopsquatting') plus recently-first-published packages. The explicit mention of 'npm registry' and package.json cleanly separates it from slopsquat_scanner__scan_pip and the directory/package-level siblings.

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 scope ('every dependency declared in a package.json') implies this is the whole-manifest npm scan as opposed to the single-package check_package or the generic scan_directory, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent must infer the routing from the tool name and sibling names rather than from the description.

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