open-context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cache' indicating a side effect/persistence behavior and identifies the source as 'npm registry', but lacks details on error handling (e.g., 404 behavior), rate limiting, cache duration, or return value structure.

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 single sentence is efficiently constructed and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is minimally descriptive and could benefit from slightly more detail about what information is retrieved without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately identifies the domain but fails to specify what package information is returned (e.g., metadata, dependencies, versions, README content), leaving ambiguity about the tool's complete utility.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (both packageName and version are well-documented in the schema), the description does not need to compensate. The description mentions neither parameter specifically, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch and cache') and resource ('npm packages') and clearly scopes the tool to the npm ecosystem, distinguishing it from siblings like get_node_info, get_python_info, and get_docker_image which handle different technologies.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives (e.g., get_node_info vs get_npm_info), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing valid package names or when to specify versions.

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