npm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call verifies login state (an auth-related behavior), declares 'Read only', and reveals the shape of the returned counts. It omits failure behavior (what happens when NPM is unreachable or not logged in), which is the main remaining gap for a diagnostic tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return summary follows. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly necessary, yet the description's summary is harmless and aids selection. A no-parameter, read-only health check is otherwise fully covered; only error/offline behavior is left unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; nothing is required of the description here beyond what it already establishes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether Nginx Proxy Manager is reachable and authenticated, and enumerates what the result contains (version, host/stream counts). An agent can distinguish this health-check tool from npm_hosts, npm_call, and npm_audit_log without opening a schema.

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?

'Good first call' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool — as an initial connectivity/auth probe. It stops short of naming alternatives or an explicit when-not condition, but the use case is unambiguous.

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