check_names

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with a name-availability lookup, and the description usefully adds fallback behavior plus the npm scoping preference (@user/name first). It does not disclose that live registry/GitHub lookups occur, whether GitHub auth is needed ('your GitHub' hints at it), rate limits, or what is returned when no free alternative exists.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing parenthetical '(npm: @user/name first)' is terse to the point of being cryptic, slightly costing clarity.

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 tool with three fully undocumented, all-optional parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description leaves meaningful gaps: optionality/combination rules, supported registries, and the shape of a 'not taken' versus 'taken' result. It covers the core idea but not enough to call it confidently without trial.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It loosely maps each of the three params to a concept (packageName/registry, repoName), but says nothing about the npm/pypi/crates enum, that all three are optional and can be combined or omitted, or what defaults apply — all of which an agent must guess.

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?

States a specific verb and two concrete resources: a package name on a registry and a repo name on GitHub, with the second sentence clarifying that this is an availability check that falls back to a free alternative. It is distinguishable from siblings like inspect_package or create_github_repo, though the description never names them explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as preflight, scaffold_project, or create_github_repo that also deal with names and projects. The context (check a name before publishing/creating) is only inferable from the return-value sentence.

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