pypi_maintainers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool extracts information but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. This omission is significant for an unannotated tool.

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 long with no fluff. The action ('Extract') is front-loaded, and every sentence provides value. It is an example of efficient communication.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns (author/maintainer info) and common use cases. However, it could briefly mention the return format or typical fields to be fully self-contained.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'name', with a clear description 'PyPI package name'. The tool description does not add extra semantic details beyond the schema, so it 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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'author and maintainer information from a PyPI package'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pypi_package by focusing specifically on maintainer data, though it could be more precise about what information is extracted (e.g., emails, names).

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 usage context: 'useful for detecting ownership changes or suspicious maintainer patterns'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if only package metadata is needed) or mention alternatives like pypi_package. The guidance is clear but incomplete.

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