check_npmrc_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Check', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what output format to expect, whether it accesses the network, or what happens with missing files. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that an agent must invoke safely.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it is so terse that it omits valuable information, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw. For what it does include, it is efficiently written.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent will receive and what side effects may occur. It does neither. It also fails to clarify how the optional parameters interact (e.g., if config_path is provided, does include_global still apply?) or how this differs from 'check_npm_global_config'. For a tool with only two optional parameters, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 provides 100% coverage: both 'config_path' and 'include_global' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already explains the parameters. No extra meaning is contributed beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the verb 'Check' and the resource '.npmrc configuration files', making the core purpose clear. It also mentions 'local and global' which hints at scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_npm_global_config'. The word 'check' is somewhat vague—could mean display, validate, or list—but it is specific enough to indicate a read operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related sibling 'check_npm_global_config'. The description implies it covers both local and global files, but does not state exclusions (e.g., when to use the global-only variant) or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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