npmRepoStats

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent). It does not mention caching behavior, rate limits, or data freshness, which would be useful for a tool that may fetch external data.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It could be slightly more specific, but it is concise and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 complexity of the sibling tools (18 sibling npm tools) and the lack of an output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what data shape to expect or how this tool differs from similar ones like npmQuality or npmScore.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, it adds no additional meaning or guidance about the parameters (e.g., how many packages are reasonable, the meaning of ignoreCache). Baseline 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 states it gets repository statistics for NPM packages, which is a verb+resource. However, it is vague about what 'statistics' means (e.g., GitHub stars, forks, issues) and does not distinguish from siblings like npmScore or npmQuality.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like npmTrends or npmMaintenance, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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