outdated

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful output semantics beyond the annotations: 'Empty output means everything is current,' which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the output interpretation and next step. No filler.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece (empty = current) and points at the upgrade follow-ups. It could note version/detail granularity of the output, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage there is nothing for the description to explain; a 4 baseline applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('installed cores and libraries that have upgrades available'), so an agent immediately knows it surfaces outdated items. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like core-list or lib-list, which also enumerate installed items, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It names the follow-up tools (core-upgrade / lib-upgrade) and the condition that triggers them, giving a usable workflow context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it versus core-list/lib-list, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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