check_npm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the commands run but does not disclose that npm install can modify the project (e.g., node_modules), may require network access, or what the tool returns upon success or failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that can perform mutating actions.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it signals errors, but it does not. It also fails to mention side effects like dependency installation, making it incomplete for a tool that has mutating potential. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the consequences of invoking it.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (command, envPath, directory), giving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks an npm project for errors by running npm install or npm run build, identifying the specific project type and actions. It distinguishes from sibling check tools for other languages, though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.

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 when to use this tool (for npm project error checking) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like cmd_exec or powershell_exec. There is no mention of preconditions or context that would favor this tool over more general command execution tools.

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