alternatives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are 'curated' and include a conditional verdict 'if the alternative is also indexed,' which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential outcomes (e.g., unknown library), output format details, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 purpose ('Curated alternatives to a library') and packs key output features without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description explains the primary output (alternatives with 'prefer it when' and verdict) but lacks details about error cases, the source/nature of the curation, or how the alternative indexing verdict is determined. For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema already fully documents the 'library' parameter as 'Library name as published on npm or PyPI' (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-level details, so the schema carries the load, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 returns curated alternatives to a library, with each alternative accompanied by a 'prefer it when' line and a verdict. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_link and how_do_i, though it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 implies usage when the user needs alternative library options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like should_i_use or pick_library. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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