check_npm_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and the optional verification behavior, and the schema parameter notes that verification can be slow. However, it does not disclose whether verification might modify the cache, purge entries, or what exactly 'verify cache integrity' entails beyond being slow.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the secondary verification behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It earns its place and communicates the tool's scope efficiently.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors reasonably well. It could be more complete by indicating what kind of result is returned, but given the simplicity of the operation and the schema's parameter documentation, the overall context is 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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema already documents verify_cache as 'Run cache verification (can be slow)' and provides a default. The description's phrase 'verify cache integrity' aligns with the parameter but does not add new semantic detail.

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 names a specific verb ('check') and resource ('npm cache') and includes a second concrete action ('verify cache integrity'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_npmrc_config and check_npm_version by focusing on the cache rather than configuration or version.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The usage context is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need the npm cache location or want to verify cache integrity. However, the description does not help an agent choose among the many npm-related sibling tools.

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