npmQuality

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety or idempotency. It adds minimal context by specifying 'quality metrics,' but lacks details on what metrics are analyzed, rate limits, or data sources. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero waste—'Analyze package quality metrics' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, earning its place 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 (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'quality metrics' entail or how results are returned, leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage in a crowded sibling toolset.

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 analyze.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 quality metrics' clearly states the verb ('analyze') and resource ('package quality metrics'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'npmScore' or 'npmMaintenance' which might analyze similar metrics, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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 like 'npmScore' and 'npmMaintenance' that might overlap in analyzing package quality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help the agent choose appropriately.

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