Package Integrity Verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details such as checking SHA-256/SRI hashes and SLSA provenance attestations, and it describes the return format. No contradictions 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 concise, with a clear opening sentence and a bullet-like return description. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and output without unnecessary words.

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 tool has only 2 parameters (one optional), full schema coverage, and an output schema referenced in the description, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaning by mentioning that the package can include a version string (e.g., 'express@4.18.2') and that ecosystems are 'npm' or 'pypi', which aligns with the schema defaults. It also explains the return value structure with hash match and provenance status, adding context beyond the schema.

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's purpose: verifying package integrity and SLSA provenance against registries. It uses specific verbs ('Verify', 'Checks', 'looks up') and mentions the resource (package integrity, SLSA provenance) and scope (npm/PyPI registries). Among siblings, it stands out as a package-specific integrity check versus more general or different scans.

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 context for when to use the tool (verify integrity of npm/PyPI packages) and implicitly excludes other ecosystems or types of verification not related to registries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the sibling list includes many other scanning tools, making the context clear enough.

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