npm: Auth Status

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior beyond safety. It does this thoroughly: defines the 'unknown' state, tells the agent to read `blockers` and `undetermined`, and discloses the account-level scope limitation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: summary of reported fields, call-first instruction, interpretation of 'unknown,' and a crucial scope caveat. The most important usage directive is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return semantics, and it does: trusted_publishing_available values, blockers/undetermined fields, and the account-level vs package-level distinction. An agent has enough information to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than inventing parameter details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report what this server can and cannot do,' then enumerates the exact status items it covers: token provenance, npm account, 2FA, write enablement, and cached one-time password. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_auth_reload and npm_audit_dependencies.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first when a tool you expected is missing — an absent tool means missing configuration rather than a bug.' It also provides a when-not-to-over-trust limitation: the answer is account-level and cannot see per-package trust refusals. It does not name specific alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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