find_alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that results are 'curated', includes return format, and mentions stdlib inclusion. No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus structured 'USE WHEN' and 'RETURNS' clauses. Every element adds value: purpose, usage conditions, and output format. No superfluous text.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage triggers, and return format. Lacks handling of edge cases like no alternatives found, but overall sufficient for this complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description does not clarify the expected format for the 'package' string (e.g., exact name, version?). It only mentions the output. With no parameter guidance, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 provides 'curated replacements for deprecated/unhealthy packages', including stdlib built-ins. It distinguishes from siblings like check_package or get_health_score by focusing on alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE WHEN: pkg flagged AVOID/URGENT; what to use instead of X; before guessing a replacement name', giving clear context and a negative example (guessing). Could be improved by also stating when NOT to use, e.g., when package is healthy.

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