check_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the tool's behavior (check existence and risk, return status) and gives interpretation clues, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network calls, rate limits) or permissions required. Since it's a read-only check, these gaps are minor but present.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second summarizes return values, and the third provides actionable interpretation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 2 parameters (name required, ecosystem optional), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, return categories, and interpretation, but omits mention of the 'ecosystem' parameter and does not fully specify the return structure (e.g., exact risk details or flags format). For a security-focused tool, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with only the 'name' parameter having a description (including an example). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it does not explain the 'ecosystem' parameter or its defaults/values, relying on the schema's enum and default 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 verb (check) and resource (a single package), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it assesses typosquat risk before installation, which other tools (check_workflow, score_manifest, verify_lockfile) do not do.

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 clear context by stating 'BEFORE installing it', implying the tool is intended for pre-installation safety checks. It also gives interpretation hints for non-existent names and names close to popular packages, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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