mcp-shipcheck

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying this is a preview/simulation ('would be included') and that it reports size totals. It doesn't contradict the read-only annotation and provides useful operational details about what the tool actually does.

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 perfectly concise with a single sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all necessary information efficiently.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its behavioral characteristics. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does mention what information will be returned (file list and size totals).

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, the input schema already fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without exceeding it.

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 specific action ('Show which files would be included') and resource ('by `npm pack`') with additional scope ('and report size totals'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a preview/read-only operation rather than actual execution.

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 for when to use this tool (to preview npm pack results before actual packing) and implies it's an alternative to running npm pack directly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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