npm_trusted_publishers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement ('write access to the package') and the type of data shown (OIDC trust with CI/CD providers). This goes beyond the annotation defaults 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 two sentences long, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful context: the resource and content first, then the authentication requirement. There is 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, content, and authentication requirements. It lacks an explicit return-format description, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'name' with an example, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'List trusted publishing configurations for a package.' It further distinguishes itself by specifying the content (OIDC trust relationships with CI/CD providers) and the purpose (tokenless publishing), which differentiates it from sibling tools like npm_provenance or npm_signing_keys.

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 when to use the tool: to inspect OIDC trust relationships for a package. It also notes the prerequisite of having write access, which is a usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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