get_package_details

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the kind of information returned (versions, dependencies, repository info), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or prerequisites. For a simple get tool, the lack of explicit safety or behavioral caveats keeps this at a middle score.

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 identifies the action and subject. Every word adds value, and it is free of fluff or repetition.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return categories (versions, dependencies, repository info) and the input requirements. While it could specify exact return format or behavior when the package does not exist, the essentials are present. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'packageName' and 'version'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond listing the return content, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb 'Get detailed information' targeting a 'specific npm package' and enumerates the key contents (versions, dependencies, repository info). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_packages (which finds packages) and compare_versions (which compares versions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 needing details on a specific package, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling tools suggest contexts like searching or comparing, but no exclusions or alternative pointers are provided. Usage is inferred from the name and description rather than clearly stated.

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