npm_team_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds the behavioral detail about returning permission levels, which is helpful, but does not go further into auth requirements, rate limits, or return structure—acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the primary action and scope, the second states a valid use case. Information is front-loaded and each clause 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 list tool with rich annotations and only two parameters, the description is complete. It clearly states what is listed and why it is useful. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the mention of 'permission levels' in the description, making the return content inferable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states (org and team names). It simply refers to 'a specific team' which is redundant with the team parameter.

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 a specific verb ('List'), clearly identifies the resource ('all packages a specific team has access to'), and adds distinguishing detail about permission levels ('read-only or read-write'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like npm_org_packages and npm_user_packages by scoping to a team.

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 sentence 'Useful for auditing team permissions' provides a clear use case and context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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