PatternStack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (get trend data) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify data sources, timeframes for trends, update frequency, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., numerical trends, visualizations). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 trend data for a package') and adds specific detail ('rising, stable, declining'). 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 complexity (trend analysis with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what trend data entails (e.g., metrics, time periods), how results are returned, or prerequisites for use. For a data-fetching tool with multiple inputs and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), with the 'package' and 'framework' parameters documented but 'ecosystem' relying on an enum without a description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'package' is the target and hints at trend types, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how framework or ecosystem affect trends) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.

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 action ('Get trend data') and resource ('for a package'), specifying the types of trends (rising, stable, declining). It distinguishes from siblings like dependency.health or dependency.alternatives by focusing on trend analysis rather than health metrics or alternative packages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the dependency category.

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 like dependency.health (for overall package health) or dependency.alternatives (for finding substitutes). It mentions trend types but doesn't specify scenarios where trend data is preferred over other dependency metrics or how it complements sibling tools.

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