npmRepoStats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'repository stats' and implying GitHub as the source (from the title in annotations), but doesn't detail rate limits, error handling, or output format, offering only basic behavioral insight beyond 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output, error cases, or integration with siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder full contextual understanding despite the annotations.

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 an array of package names. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Get repository statistics') and resource ('for NPM packages'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like npmQuality or npmScore, which might also provide statistical insights, leaving some ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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 npmQuality, npmScore, and npmTrends that might offer overlapping or related data, there's no indication of specific use cases, 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.