npmVersions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying 'all available versions,' which clarifies scope beyond what annotations provide, but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details. With annotations covering core behavioral traits, this additional context warrants a score above baseline.

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 any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the scope ('all available versions'), but could improve by mentioning the return format or handling of multiple packages. However, with annotations covering key behaviors, it is sufficient for effective use.

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' fully documented in the schema as 'List of package names to get versions for.' The description does not add any additional meaning or details beyond what the schema provides, 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all available versions of an NPM package'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like npmLatest (which gets only the latest version) or npmCompare (which compares packages), providing clear differentiation.

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 for retrieving version information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like npmLatest or npmCompare. It provides clear context (getting versions for NPM packages) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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