find_outdated_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does usefully disclose that the operation is non-destructive ('without modifying the project'). However, it doesn't explain what makes a resource 'outdated', whether the scan is project-wide or limited to selected layers, or any cost/permission implications — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.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?

One short sentence with zero waste, and the most decision-relevant fact (non-mutating) is front-loaded after the purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and there are no parameters to document. What is missing is domain context: the criteria for 'outdated' and the scope of the scan, which an agent needs to decide whether this is the right tool versus list_project_resources or search_resources.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 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?

States a specific action ('plan project-resource replacements') against a specific resource, and the name plus description together make clear it identifies outdated resources. It doesn't name the sibling replace_outdated_resources explicitly, but 'without modifying the project' signals the read-only distinction from that mutation tool.

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 phrase 'without modifying the project' implies this is the planning step before a replacement operation, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g., replace_outdated_resources) is given. The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling names.

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