Check Outdated Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details such as grouping results by ecosystem for Node projects and flagging major version updates, which are not implied by the schema or annotations, going beyond the baseline.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear first sentence, a list of supported ecosystems, two key behavioral traits, and two illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is compact yet informative.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, supported ecosystems, and specific behavior. While there is no output schema or mention of return format, the annotations and description together give sufficient context to use the tool effectively. Missing output details are a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'project' parameter fully described as a project name or absolute path. The description does not add any extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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The description clearly states the tool checks a project for outdated dependencies, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning grouping by ecosystem and flagging major version updates, which is a unique behavior not implied by any other tool. The supported ecosystem list adds further specificity.

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 context for use through natural language examples ("Check JobPin for outdated deps") and mentions the supported ecosystems, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the examples effectively illustrate typical usage scenarios.

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