check_outdated_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the data source (composer.lock vs `composer outdated`), the per-package latest-status values (semver-safe-update vs update-possible), and a failure mode where scanned=false plus a reason is returned instead of a misleading zero. It stops short of stating permissions, runtime cost, or whether the scan hits the network.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the differentiation and failure-mode notes are dense rather than padded. The single long em-dash-heavy sentence runs on, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still explains the per-package status field and the scanned=false degradation path. For a one-parameter scan tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the single `path` parameter is fully documented in the schema as the project root holding composer.json. The description adds only the related detail that composer.lock lives there, which does not extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks every installed package ... against `composer outdated`') and anchors it to a concrete artifact (composer.lock in the Magento project root). It explicitly separates itself from two named siblings, audit_security and check_updates, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Names both alternatives and the precise condition that selects this tool: a package can be behind on releases with neither a CVE nor a compatibility issue, 'and that's still tech debt worth surfacing.' That is an explicit when-to-use rationale plus implicit when-not (use audit_security/check_updates for those concerns).

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