npmTypes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, and repeatable operations. The description adds value by specifying the focus on TypeScript types, which is not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance, and every part of the sentence serves a functional role.

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 (checking types for packages), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what the tool does but could benefit from mentioning the output format or any limitations. However, it adequately covers the core functionality in context.

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 'packages' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'List of package names to check types for'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 clearly states the specific verb ('Check') and resource ('TypeScript types availability and version for a package'), distinguishing it from siblings like npmVersions (which checks package versions) or npmDeps (which checks dependencies). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage when TypeScript type information is needed for packages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like npmDeps (which might include type dependencies) or npmSearch (which could find packages with types). No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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