Generate upgrade plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it says nothing about side effects (e.g., does it create checkpoints, modify files, or require network access?), whether it is read-only, or if it requires specific permissions. The phrase 'generate...plan' implies a computational operation but lacks detail on output format, size limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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, which is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is too sparse to be actually useful, trading completeness for brevity. For a tool with no annotations or schema descriptions, the description should expand to include essential context, but as a standalone sentence it is structurally efficient even if lacking in content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, 13 siblings, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools, specify the output format, clarify parameter semantics, or provide any usage guidance. Even as a 'plan generation' tool, it lacks critical context about prerequisites, side effects, and failure modes.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters ('targets' and 'rootPath') at all. 'Targets' could be upgrade targets, dependency names, or something else; 'rootPath' is somewhat self-explanatory but could still use context (e.g., file system root for the repo). The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema property names, which is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 it 'Turn[s] dependency intelligence and repo findings into an ordered upgrade plan,' which identifies the general action (generating a plan) and the inputs (dependency intelligence and repo findings). However, it does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'detect_upgrade_paths' or 'run_upgrade_pipeline,' which could also produce upgrade-related outputs. The verb 'turn...into' is vague about the specific transformation, and 'ordered upgrade plan' is not precisely defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_project,' 'detect_upgrade_paths,' or 'run_upgrade_pipeline.' It doesn't mention prerequisites, what inputs are expected (beyond the vague 'dependency intelligence and repo findings'), or what kind of 'findings' are needed. There is no discussion of when NOT to use it, leaving the agent without context to decide.

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