npm_provenance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention if the tool requires authentication, makes network calls, or has rate limits. The return format is not described, leaving the agent uncertain about what output to expect.

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: one stating the main function and one providing context. Every word is essential, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action but omits details about the return value (e.g., boolean, object) and error handling. This leaves minor gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 descriptions for both 'name' and 'version' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'npm package version Sigstore provenance attestations and signatures'. It also provides context about detecting unauthorized publishes, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like npm_attestations by focusing on provenance and signatures.

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 mention of 'Key for detecting unauthorized publishes like the Axios-style attacks' provides clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, such as npm_attestations for broader attestation checks.

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