npm_get_access_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the obvious read implication of 'Get'. It says nothing about permissions required, behavior for an unknown ID, or whether the response is cached/scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, correctly sized for a simple lookup tool. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than deliberately minimal.

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 trivial two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, the absence of annotations means auth/error behavior remains undocumented, leaving a gap an agent could hit at call time.

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 both list_id and the optional expand parameter are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the required parameter and adds no syntax or format detail.

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 (Get) plus resource (access list) and scope (by ID), which reads clearly against siblings like npm_list_access_lists and npm_update_access_list. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements or noting it returns a single record, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the prerequisite that an ID must already be known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of npm_list_access_lists as the way to discover IDs, and no exclusions or error conditions.

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