npmSize

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, cacheable read operation. The description adds useful context about what type of size information is retrieved (dependencies and bundle size), but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, data freshness, or specific limitations of the Bundlephobia service mentioned in the title annotation.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward read operation and gets directly to the point about what information is retrieved.

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?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and a simple single parameter, the description is reasonably complete about what information is retrieved. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned size information (e.g., whether it includes breakdowns, units, or comparison data). The mention of 'Bundlephobia' in the title annotation suggests a specific service, but this isn't elaborated in the description.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single 'packages' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing additional parameter semantics.

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 'package size information', specifying what information is retrieved (dependencies and bundle size). It distinguishes from some siblings like npmAlternatives or npmVulnerabilities, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like npmDeps or npmRepoStats which might also provide size-related data.

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 available (npmDeps, npmRepoStats, npmQuality, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific size-focused tool is preferred over other tools that might provide overlapping or complementary information.

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