security_fetch_package_maintainer_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses data sources (PyPI JSON API, npm registry), caching behavior (1-hour cache), rate limits (60/minute), auth requirements (none), output fields (e.g., anomaly_score, maintainer_health with possible values), and the intended use case. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes all necessary details without redundancy. Slightly verbose due to the feedback instructions, but those are valuable for contextual completeness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and 2 simple parameters, the description is highly complete. It covers data sources, caching, rate limits, auth, use case, output fields, and a fallback. No significant gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'npm or PyPI' but the schema also includes 'cargo' and 'go' enums, causing a slight inconsistency. It does not describe the package_name format or the exact enum values beyond the two ecosystems. Given the simple parameter types, the description provides marginal additional value.

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: 'Analyse ownership and release history for an npm or PyPI package to detect supply-chain risk.' It specifies the verb, resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_risk_brief which focus on different aspects.

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 explicitly targets security engineers auditing dependencies for production builds. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but it provides a fallback action (report_feedback) for cases where the tool's response is insufficient, which guides proper usage.

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