node_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses two behavioral facts beyond the name: the search starts at the *nearest* node_modules (upward resolution) and results are rendered as name@version. It does not say what happens when no node_modules is found, whether matching is case-sensitive or regex, or how an absent pattern behaves.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource and packing output format and filter semantics in the same clause.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and filter semantics reasonably. The unexplained project_dir and undefined empty-pattern/no-install behaviors leave meaningful gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'pattern' is a substring match on the package name, but 'project_dir' is left completely undefined — no hint whether it is a start directory, a path to a node_modules, or an absolute vs relative path.

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?

Clear verb ('List') plus resource ('packages installed in the nearest node_modules') and even the output shape ('name@version'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the py_* siblings by naming node_modules, though it never explicitly contrasts with py_versions or node_types.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus py_versions/node_types, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usable signal is the implicit ecosystem cue from 'node_modules', leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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