get_package

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about the kind of data returned (latest version, dependencies, download stats, size, repository links), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior on errors, network failures, or any rate limits—common gaps for a 'get' 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a concise list of details. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output categories well. However, it does not provide any context about how this tool relates to search_packages or compare_packages, leaving a gap in tool selection guidance that would make it fully complete.

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 documents the single 'name' parameter with examples ('express', '@types/node', 'zod'). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond calling it a 'specific npm package', so baseline 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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'detailed information about a specific npm package' and enumerates content areas (version, dependencies, download stats, size, repository links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_packages and compare_packages.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies you already know the package name ('specific npm package') but does not state that search_packages should be used for discovery or compare_packages for comparisons. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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