Check a project's runtimes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it scans a specific set of file types and reports matches with file and line. It also clarifies that the caller must supply the file text rather than the tool reading paths, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 long sentence but every part earns its place: the action, the supported file list, the output granularity, and the invocation requirement. It could be split for readability, but there is no fluff 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 tool with this complexity, the description covers the input format, supported file types, what is checked, and the output detail. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be spelled out. The main missing piece is differentiation from sibling tools, but that is not required for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'path and text' to the path/content structure and lists relevant file types, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify constraints like 30-file limits or that content should be the full file text, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear action: it finds runtime, database, and OS versions pinned in project files and checks each against endoflife.date, returning file and line. It names the supported file types explicitly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings check_versions and product_lifecycle, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_versions or product_lifecycle, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only usage-related instruction is 'Pass each file's path and text,' which is about invocation, not selection context.

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