npmAlternatives

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true (safe operation), openWorldHint=true (handles unknown inputs), and idempotentHint=false (results may vary). The description doesn't add behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'similar functionality' entails. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal context, meeting the lower bar with annotations present.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (finding alternatives), annotations cover safety and input handling, but there's no output schema. The description doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of packages with scores or descriptions), which could be helpful. It's adequate but has gaps in contextual detail for a tool with no output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'packages' parameter as a list of package names. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on package names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find alternative packages with similar functionality.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('alternative packages'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like npmCompare or npmSearch, which might have overlapping purposes. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but could be more distinctive.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., npmCompare, npmSearch, npmTrends), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what scenarios it's designed for. The description is too generic to offer meaningful usage context.

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