npm_attestations

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only ('Fetch') and returns specific data (SLSA provenance and publish attestations) conditionally ('when available'). However, it does not disclose potential size of responses, error conditions, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. Since no annotations are provided, more details would be beneficial.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second adds return details. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 explain the return structure in detail. It only mentions 'SLSA provenance and publish attestations' without describing the format, fields, or potential contents of the attestation bundles. This is insufficient for an agent to process the response 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (name and version). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mentioning 'full Sigstore attestation bundles' but not tying it to parameters. 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'full Sigstore attestation bundles' for an npm package version. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'npm_provenance', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_provenance. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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