npm_version

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by describing metadata retrieval, but does not confirm side-effect free or mention authentication, rate limits, or response size. Sufficient for a simple fetch but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence that quickly conveys purpose and content. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., list format). Front-loading is adequate.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields (dependencies, dist info, scripts, deprecation status) well. It is complete enough for a basic read tool, though annotations 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'name' and 'version' have descriptions). The tool description does not add further parameter meaning—it only describes what the response contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches metadata for a specific npm package version and lists included fields (dependencies, dist info, scripts, deprecation status). This differentiates it from sibling tools like npm_package (general package info) and npm_scripts (scripts only), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as npm_package or npm_search. The description does not mention expected input or output context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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