Run full upgrade pipeline

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

The description reveals that the tool returns a compact summary (token-saving) and stores all artifacts for later access, which are useful behavioral cues. However, since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden: it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only (analysis/planning) or mutates state. Given the sibling 'apply_safe_codemods' suggests actual changes are separate, but the description lacks an explicit statement about side effects or permissions.

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?

Two sentences covering purpose and key behavioral traits (compact summary, artifact storage) with no redundant words. Each sentence adds new information, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 complexity of a five-step pipeline with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves several gaps. It omits parameter explanations, does not state whether the tool performs writes or is safe to run, and does not describe what the compact summary contains. The agent would need external documentation or trial-and-error to use it correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description must explain parameter meanings and valid values. It does not mention targets, rootPath, or skipSteps at all, leaving the agent to guess from names and types. For example, the 'skipSteps' parameter's enum values ('findings', 'breakingChanges') are not explained in context of the five-step pipeline. This is a critical omission.

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 the tool runs a composite pipeline of five steps (analyze, paths, breaking changes, deprecations, plan) in a single call. The verb 'Run' and resource 'full upgrade pipeline' are specific, and the step sequence distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle individual steps or related tasks.

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 the tool is for executing a full multi-step upgrade analysis in one go, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this composited approach versus running individual steps. It does not mention alternatives from the sibling list (e.g., analyze_project, find_breaking_changes) or scenarios where this might be inappropriate (e.g., needing only a specific step).

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