check_python_package_on_dev_machines

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that version filtering is not applied server-side and must be done client-side via the 'versions' param, and that omitting it returns all installs. Lacks details on rate limits or authentication, but sufficiently covers key behavior for a check tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. Purpose stated first, then behavioral nuance and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value.

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, description adequately covers purpose, behavior (client-side filtering), and relationship to sibling. Parameter usage is clarified. Completely sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying that the 'versions' parameter filters client-side (not server-side) and that omitting it returns all installs. For 'customer', description restates schema info. Overall, description provides moderate added meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it's a check for a PyPI package on developer machines, using action verb 'check' and resource 'PyPI package on dev machines'. Differentiates from sibling check_pypi_package_exposure by specifying it covers dev machines.

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?

Explicitly says 'for a malicious-PyPI-package incident you MUST check both' this tool and check_pypi_package_exposure, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains independence of exposure surfaces.

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