npm_get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. A "report" implies a non-mutating read, and the zero-parameter schema reinforces that, so the safety profile is inferable. However, nothing is said about caching, freshness, whether counts span all host types, or cost of the call.

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 compact phrase with the resource and its scope front-loaded; the parenthetical enumeration is efficient. It is minimal but nothing is wasted, though it is arguably terse enough to be under-specified.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally describe the return shape (e.g., a counts object with one field per host type). It names the categories but does not confirm whether the response is counts keyed by those categories, leaving the agent to infer the structure.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is the baseline 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 gives a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("host count report") and enumerates the four categories counted: proxy, redirection, stream, dead. This distinguishes it from the many list/get single-host siblings, which return entities rather than aggregate counts. It is clear but does not frame the distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this report versus the list_* tools (e.g., to obtain totals without fetching every host). The intended use as a summary/overview tool is only implied by the word "report". No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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