npm_release_frequency

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about what is analyzed (timeline, gaps, maintenance) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or how 'limit' affects analysis. It adds some value but not rich detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose and key outputs without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what it returns (timeline, gaps, maintenance status). It could mention the role of 'limit' more explicitly, but the schema covers it, so the description is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'limit'. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action ('Analyze') and resource ('release cadence of a package'), and elaborates with the outputs ('publish timeline, gaps, and whether the project is actively maintained'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on cadence is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 the tool is for analyzing release timeliness and maintenance status, but provides no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no comparison with similar npm_* tools. Usage is inferred from the purpose statement.

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