Install npm dependencies

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions auto-detection and no-audit/no-fund defaults, but does not elaborate on what exactly is modified (e.g., node_modules, lock files) or potential side effects like timeouts or script execution.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key specifics (auto-detection, defaults). No extraneous words or redundancy.

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 destructiveHint, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description explains core functionality and defaults but omits details like error behavior, output format, or whether it reverts on failure. It is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a destructive operation.

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 40%; description adds value by explaining that project is auto-detected and that default mode is ci, and that no-audit/no-fund flags are applied. However, it does not describe cwd, ignoreScripts, or timeoutSeconds, leaving gaps for those parameters.

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 it runs npm ci or install with specific defaults (no-audit/no-fund) inside an auto-detected npm project. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the auto-detection detail distinguishes it from a generic run_npm sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_npm. It does not mention when to avoid it, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage context is purely implied.

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