Composer Outdated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, which is acceptable but not improved upon.

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 communicates the primary purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is somewhat incomplete for a tool with no output schema. It does not mention what the output format looks like (e.g., list of packages with versions) or how the 'format' parameter affects output. However, the tool is simple and the sibling list provides context. A more complete description would include return value details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter information, but the schema already describes each parameter adequately (direct, format, projectPath).

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 that the tool lists packages needing updates based on composer.json constraints. It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like composer_audit, which checks for security vulnerabilities, so it loses a point for differentiation.

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 such as composer_update or composer_audit. The context of use is implied but not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusion criteria.

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