depguard_verify

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does existence checking and typosquatting detection and is faster, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, caching, or network dependencies. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, no filler or redundant information. Every word is purposeful and efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and differentiator. It could mention if network access is required or any preconditions, but it is largely complete for this complexity level.

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 already describes 'name' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but doesn't provide additional parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks npm package existence and detects typosquatting. It uses specific verbs and resources ('quick check', 'existence verification') and distinguishes it from sibling depguard_guard by highlighting speed and scope.

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 says when to use this tool ('when you only need existence verification without a full audit') and contrasts it with depguard_guard. It could be improved by listing other alternatives for different use cases, but provides clear context.

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