package_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 ('Get detailed info about an npm package') and lists key data points. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data returned, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for a read operation.

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' clearly documented in the schema as 'Package name (e.g., 'express')'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('npm package'), specifying what information is retrieved (description, license, repo, dependencies). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive package metadata rather than specific aspects like downloads, vulnerabilities, or comparisons. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'search' might overlap in purpose).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools available (e.g., 'vulnerabilities' for security info, 'dependency_tree' for dependencies, 'search' for finding packages), there is no indication of when this comprehensive metadata tool is preferred over more specialized ones or what prerequisites might exist.

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