npm_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states execution with no mention of side effects (e.g., modifying node_modules), failure cases, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for an execution tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., stdout, exit code). It does not. Additionally, with no annotations and a 3-parameter schema, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (command, args, cwd) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so baseline score 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 'Run npm commands (install, test, build, etc)' clearly identifies the tool's purpose as executing npm commands, explicitly listing common subcommands. The verb 'Run' and resource 'npm' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguished from general command execution siblings like run_command.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_command for non-npm commands, pip_install for Python). Usage is implied by the tool name, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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