npmMaintenance

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations with potential unknown data. The description adds 'Analyze package maintenance metrics,' which implies retrieval and analysis behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth needs, or specific analysis methods beyond what annotations cover.

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 phrase ('Analyze package maintenance metrics') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (analyzing metrics for packages), annotations cover safety and idempotency, but there's no output schema to explain return values. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for this gap, leaving the agent unsure of what 'maintenance metrics' include or the analysis output format.

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' documented as 'List of package names to analyze.' The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on package names. 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 'Analyze package maintenance metrics' clearly states the verb ('Analyze') and resource ('package maintenance metrics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'npmQuality' or 'npmScore' that might also analyze metrics, so it's not fully specific.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., npmQuality, npmScore, npmTrends) that might overlap in analyzing package metrics, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.

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