npm_ops_playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns (recipes, tool mappings, CLI fallbacks, message formats) and its purpose to prevent reinventing approaches. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, each earning its place: what it returns, when to call it first, and why it exists. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter meta-tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the tool's function, usage timing, and content of the guidance. Given the simplicity, nothing important is missing.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). With zero params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details but none are needed.

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's purpose: 'Return canonical recipes for common npm operations' — which MCP tool to call, CLI fallbacks, and message format guidance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the meta-tool that guides selection among them.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Call this FIRST when you're not sure how to do an npm operation.' It also clarifies how it supplements alternatives by providing CLI fallbacks when the MCP server can't handle something. This is strong usage guidance.

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