npm_provenance

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.) by disclosing that it does NOT perform cryptographic signature verification, certificate-chain verification, or Rekor transparency-log verification. This is valuable behavioral context that prevents misuse.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main verb and resource, followed by a clear explanation of the output and a necessary limitation note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture of what the tool retrieves and its limitations. It explains the return type conceptually (SLSA provenance and publish attestations) so an agent knows what to expect.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'name' and 'version', including examples and the requirement for an exact semver. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource ('Sigstore attestations for a specific package version') and explains what will be shown (SLSA provenance and publish attestations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_signing_keys or npm_trusted_publishers.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool for cryptographic verification and directs users to a dedicated Sigstore client instead. This provides clear exclusions and an alternative, going beyond a simple 'when to use' statement.

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