check_outdated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool uses 'npm outdated' and requires npm, but does not disclose what happens if package.json is missing, if the directory is invalid, or any side effects (e.g., no modifications made). The behavioral impact is not fully detailed.

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 concise with three clear sentences: purpose, action, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient high-level context to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the core functionality and requirements, though a bit more detail on return values or error scenarios would push it to 5.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds context by linking the tool's operation to the underlying npm command, which helps understand the 'raw' output option. However, it does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema, so a 4 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The description clearly states the tool checks for outdated npm packages using 'npm outdated' and analyzes dependencies for newer versions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explore_project or list_allowed_directories by focusing specifically on npm dependency updates.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: for checking outdated npm packages in a project. It mentions a prerequisite (npm installed and accessible). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives when a user might want other dependency checks or provide guidance on when not to use this tool.

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