test_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details the side effects (builds, creates npm link) which are meaningful transactional behaviors. However, it doesn't disclose potential destructive effects (e.g., does npm link overwrite existing links?) or cleanup behavior. The described side effects are substantive for this category.

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?

The description is two sentences, first sentence front-loads the action with concrete step enumeration, second adds usage context. It's efficient with no wasted words, though slightly dense in the first sentence.

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 0-param, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the operational behavior (build, link, verify startup, validate files) and the specific package targeted. The step enumeration gives the agent a clear mental model of what execution entails. It could add failure-mode expectations but is largely complete for this simple 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?

The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema is fully described). With no parameters, the description's job is to describe workflow behavior, which it does thoroughly by enumerating the steps. There's no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Baseline 4 applies for zero-param tools.

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 clearly states the action ('execute local package testing workflow') and the specific resource (konnexx-dev-mcp package). It enumerates the concrete steps (builds package, creates npm link, verifies server startup, validates command files), which distinguishes it from siblings like publish_package and verify_mcp_servers.

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?

It provides clear context: 'test the konnexx-dev-mcp package locally before publishing.' This implies it's a pre-publish step, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling verify_mcp_servers (which is narrower), explicit exclusion would strengthen this dimension.

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