typosquat_check

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: returns matches with edit distance <= 2. Since no annotations exist, this adds important context. However, it does not detail what happens with no matches or how popular packages are determined.

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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the main action. Every phrase adds value.

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 core behavior and threshold. Minor gaps exist about the reference list of popular packages, but overall sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'popular packages' but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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's purpose: checking if a package name is similar to popular packages for typosquatting, with a specific edit distance threshold. It distinguishes from sibling 'typosquat_compare' by focusing on similarity detection.

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 typosquatting detection but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'typosquat_compare'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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