npm_check_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It thoroughly explains the tool's behavior: it fetches npm registry data, includes optional release notes and capability delta, indicates best-effort nature, and clarifies conditions under which fields appear (e.g., capability_delta_note only on degradation). No contradictions.

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 lengthy but each sentence contributes necessary detail. It fronts the core purpose and then systematically lists return fields and conditions. Could be slightly more concise, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully documents all return fields and their conditional presence. It covers every aspect of the tool's behavior, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent to invoke or interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of each boolean flag on the return object (e.g., include_release_notes adds release_url and excerpts; include_capability_delta adds new_tools, removed_tools, etc.). This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 begins with 'Check if a newer npm version is available', a specific verb and resource. It then details the return values, clearly distinguishing this tool's purpose from any sibling tools, none of which deal with npm version checking.

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 states when to use the tool ('Call at session start to encourage user to upgrade'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the unique purpose among siblings, this is not a significant gap.

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