list_outdated

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: concurrent cached lookups, failed lookups surfaced rather than hidden, and the caveat that transitive packages may be held back by parents' version ranges. Read-only behavior is only implied by 'List' and supported ecosystems are stated, but permissions and request-volume specifics remain unaddressed.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then defaults, then caveats. The registry list and the parent-range parenthetical both add decision-relevant information, and nothing is restated from the schema or the name.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the hard parts of a multi-registry network tool: caching, concurrency, and failure surfacing. It falls short only on the ambiguous 'limit' parameter for a tool whose complexity makes result-count semantics worth one clause.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully explains include_transitive (default, cost, parent-range caveat). However, 'limit' (default 40) is never mentioned; an agent cannot tell whether it truncates results or paginates. 'path' is left as a bare string with no indication that it should point at a project root containing lockfiles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List packages in a project's lockfiles that are behind their latest release,' and adds scope detail (four named registries, severity labels). It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer on its own that check_package handles single-package lookups and scan_project handles broader scans, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives useful parameter-level guidance ('By default only direct dependencies are checked; set include_transitive=True for everything') and a cost warning, but never states when to pick this tool over check_package or scan_project. Usage is implied by the word 'lockfiles' rather than spelled out as a routing rule.

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