check_outdated_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows current vs latest versions', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it does not modify files, does not mention network access requirements, or potential failure modes. It discloses the output nature but leaves out safety and side-effect details.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the primary action ('check for outdated npm packages') and the output ('show current vs latest versions'), making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose.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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It implies the output format (current vs latest) and default behavior via the schema. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases (e.g., missing package.json) or detailed return structure, but given the tool's simplicity, these are minor gaps.

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 input schema covers both parameters (include_dev and package_path) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the impact of include_dev or how package_path is resolved beyond the schema text.

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 a specific verb (check) and resource (outdated npm packages), and indicates the output (show current vs latest versions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_npm_version (which checks npm version) and analyze_package_security (security analysis), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage for checking outdated packages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not say 'use this when you want to update dependencies' or 'use check_npm_version for npm CLI version'. The purpose is clear, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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