package_health

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful caveat that requirements are reported but not certified compatible, which clarifies the tool's output is informational rather than a compatibility guarantee.

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 two efficient sentences with no wasted language. The inspection scope is front-loaded, and the compatibility caveat is clearly separated.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what is inspected and what the results mean. Remaining gaps are minor: it does not describe return structure or specify the expected package name format.

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 single required parameter is named 'name' with no schema description, so the schema offers no semantic detail. The description partially compensates by implying the parameter identifies a public npm package, but it does not clarify expected format, scoped package handling, or version behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect a public npm package for deprecation, release age, Node engine, and peer requirements. It is clear what the tool reports, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as dependency_audit or dependency_outdated.

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 scopes the tool to public npm packages, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The sibling tools dependency_inventory, dependency_audit, and dependency_outdated are not mentioned or differentiated.

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