monitor_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Check') and lists outputs, but does not mention what happens if the package is not monitored (e.g., error vs. empty result) or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and every word adds value. No extraneous information.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema. The description clearly explains what it does and what outputs to expect. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could hint at return format or edge cases.

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% for the sole parameter 'npm', and its description 'npm package name' is clear. The description reinforces the parameter by stating 'Check if an MCP package' which aligns with the 'npm' parameter.

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 'Check' and the resource 'MCP package' under monitoring, and specifies what it returns: 'current score, risk level, and recent changes'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on monitoring status rather than abuse, exposure, or scanning.

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 when to use (when needing monitoring status), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. Given sibling tools like scan_package and get_verdict, some guidance on differentiation would improve usage clarity.

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