Check npm package fitness

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 source reconciliation, confidence scoring, safe replacement inference, and detection of hallucinated package names. It could be more explicit about error handling or whether the operation is read-only, but the description is fairly transparent.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists distinguishing features without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: a fitness verdict, confidence score, safe replacement, disagreement flag, and detection of non-existent packages. The output schema handles return value details.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining version as semver range or dist-tag and noting that omitting version checks the latest. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 tool returns a cross-validated fitness verdict for an npm package, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from a plain 'is it deprecated' lookup by mentioning reconciliation from multiple sources and detection of non-existent packages.

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 use cases by contrasting with a simpler lookup and mentioning inference of safe replacements. However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool 'audit_dependencies' or state when not to use this tool.

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