npm_maintainers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool extracts but does not disclose behavioral traits like network access, read-only nature, rate limits, or potential side effects. The extraction action is implied to be read-only, but not confirmed.

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 two sentences that front-load the core functionality and provide a concrete security example. No unnecessary words 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?

Without an output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of maintainers with emails, timeline as dates). While the name and use case hint at the output, a brief note on structure would improve completeness.

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 only parameter 'name' has schema description 'npm package name', which is adequate. The tool description does not add further details or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool extracts maintainers and publish timeline from npm packages, and explicitly ties it to a critical security use case (detecting maintainer takeover attacks like event-stream). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_package or npm_version.

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 for security analysis of npm packages, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., npm_package for general info). The use case is clear, but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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