npm_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond annotations by specifying exactly what metadata is included (dependencies, dist info, file count, size, deprecation status), helping the agent anticipate the return data. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes value, listing the major metadata categories without unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what data it returns, which is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks details about default version behavior (though that's in the schema) but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both 'name' and 'version' having descriptions. The tool description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema; it mentions 'specific version' but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed metadata for a specific version'), and enumerates specific metadata types (dependencies, dist info, file count, size, deprecation status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_versions (list versions) and npm_package (general package info).

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 usage: when you need detailed metadata for a specific version. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like npm_package or npm_versions, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. It provides contextual clues but lacks explicit guidance.

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