npmMaintainers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as rate limits, error handling, or output format details. It does not contradict annotations, so it meets the baseline for having annotations but adds minimal extra value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple input schema (one parameter with full coverage) and annotations covering key behavioral traits, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of maintainer information), which could hinder agent usage. The description does not compensate for this gap, resulting in a mediocre score.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'packages' clearly documented as 'List of package names to get maintainers for'. The description does not add any semantic details beyond this, such as package name formats or handling of invalid inputs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'maintainers information for NPM packages', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'npmMaintenance' or 'npmRepoStats', which might also involve maintainer-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'npmMaintenance' and 'npmRepoStats', there is no indication of whether this tool is for bulk queries, specific maintainer details, or other contexts, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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