compare_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry the burden. It describes the action and output (structured comparison and recommendation) but does not explicitly mention that it only reads registry data or any potential side effects/latency. It's implicit but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. No superfluous words.

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?

Complete for decision-making: it explains what is compared, the registry constraint, and when to use it. The lack of output schema is compensated by the promise of a 'structured comparison and recommendation'.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (names array with min/max, registry enum with default). The description itself does not add extra beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the count and the bundle size caveat. Since coverage is 100%, 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 'compare' and resource 'packages' with clear scope (same registry, side-by-side attributes). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing comparison and the specific metrics.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'Use when choosing between alternative libraries.' Also clarifies the registry limitation for bundle size (npm only) and that it compares within a single registry.

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