compare_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It lists what is compared but does not disclose data sources, network dependencies, rate limits, or whether results are real-time. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences—first describing functionality, second suggesting use case. No redundant information; every word is purposeful.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it omits details about result format or potential limitations, leaving some gaps.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by enumerating comparison dimensions (e.g., 'downloads, bundle size') that are not in the schema, providing richer context beyond parameter names.

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 it compares npm packages side-by-side, listing specific aspects like downloads and bundle size. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., diagnose_error, scan_project_deps) by focusing on comparison for alternatives.

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 clear guidance: 'Great for choosing between alternatives.' It implies when to use but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct references to alternative tools.

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