outdated_deps

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states what the tool checks, but does not disclose whether it performs read-only operations, what the return format is, potential side effects (e.g., network access for vulnerability scanning), or error behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. There is no redundant information or unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return value or expected outcome, but it does not. It also fails to mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., whether the project must already be initialized, or what happens if dependencies are unavailable). The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Project directory name'), so baseline for schema coverage is met. However, the tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints.

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The description clearly states the tool's specific purpose: checking a project for outdated npm/pip dependencies and security vulnerabilities. The verb 'Check' and the explicit scope (dependencies and vulnerabilities) make it distinguishable from sibling tools like stale_projects or check_health.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that would favor this tool over others, nor any exclusion criteria. The description is implicit but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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