bundle_size

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, whether it queries an external service (Bundlephobia), or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON with size metrics). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that queries external data. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., size in bytes/KB, comparison data, version specifics) or behavioral aspects like network dependencies. For a tool with 1 parameter but external complexity, this is inadequate.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for npm packages, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get bundle size') and resource ('npm package via Bundlephobia'), including the precise measurement format ('minified + gzip'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'downloads' or 'vulnerabilities' by focusing on bundle analysis rather than download metrics or security.

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 for npm package bundle analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'package_info' for general metadata or 'compare_downloads' for download comparisons. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation or exclusion criteria.

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