get_node_package_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only reveals that this is a read ('Get'). It does not say whether it requires an auth context, what the nested params object should contain, whether results are cached, or what a failure looks like.

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 short phrase with no wasted words, so it is not verbose. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented nested required parameter mean the description leaves most of what an agent needs unresolved. For a tool with a nested object parameter, this is materially incomplete.

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?

Both required parameters (id, params) have 0% schema description coverage and a nested object, and the description adds nothing about their expected shape or meaning. There is no compensation for the coverage gap, so an agent cannot know what to pass.

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 a verb and resource ('Get Node package scripts'), which is more than a tautology, but the parenthetical '(XPack)' is unexplained and it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_node_modules or operate_node_module. An agent cannot tell whether 'scripts' means package.json scripts, runtime scripts, or something else.

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 call this versus get_node_modules, operate_node_module, or any other node-related sibling, and no prerequisites are stated. The single phrase carries no usage context at all.

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