upgrade_planner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context about what the plan covers (CVE severity, deprecation, version distance, quick wins vs breaking changes). It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful detail beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and every phrase adds information. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the output type, key content dimensions, and when to invoke it. The sibling context further clarifies its niche relative to dependency_health and vulnerability_scan.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description explains what the tool produces rather than parameter details, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing a prioritized upgrade plan with specific dimensions (CVE severity, deprecation, version distance, quick wins vs breaking changes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vulnerability_scan and dependency_health by focusing on the planning/prioritization output rather than the scan or health check itself.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'when the user asks what to upgrade, or after dependency_health surfaces problems.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives beyond dependency_health.

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