npm_license_check

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

The description significantly enhances the read-only annotations by detailing case-insensitive SPDX matching, flagging behavior for missing/non-standard licenses, and the subtle limitation that SPDX expressions are not decomposed and must be added verbatim to `allowed`. This is valuable beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then behavioral specifics and a key limitation. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers purpose, matching logic, and edge cases, making it largely complete for a check-style tool with good annotations. The lack of an output schema means return format isn't described, but this is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic depth by explaining how `allowed` works: case-insensitive matching and the need for verbatim SPDX expressions. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter description.

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 checks the license of a package and its direct production dependencies, and flags missing or non-standard licenses. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like npm_dependencies or npm_audit.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (license compliance checking) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The scope (direct production dependencies) and matching rules imply its use, but there is no direct comparison to related npm_* tools.

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