compare_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's output areas (downloads, size, dependencies, quality scores) and implies a read-only comparison, but does not discuss potential limitations, rate limits, or error conditions. Sufficient for most purposes but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Compare,' and every word adds value. Excellent structure with no fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema expected, the description sufficiently explains purpose, inputs, and the nature of the comparison, making it complete for an agent to decide invocation. No critical information is missing.

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 fully describes the 'names' parameter with clear constraints (2-10 package names), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the comparison context, complementing the schema without redundancy, slightly enhancing the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('npm packages'), clearly stating it shows downloads, size, dependencies, and quality scores, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_packages and get_package.

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?

While the description implies use for evaluating alternatives ('to help choose between alternatives'), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over search_packages or get_package, nor any exclusions. The usage context is only implied.

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