check_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it explains that declared requirements are often '*' and can give a false sense of readiness, that code_compatibility requires a Rector dry-run, and that the PHP source is resolved from cache, live fetch, or offline fallback table in that order with the result disclosing which. Auth, rate limits, and likely runtime cost of the dry-run are still unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the two signals plus the fallback chain follow in a logical order. It is dense and sentence-heavy, with the parenthetical about '*' being essentially a second clause inside an already long sentence, but almost every statement carries real information.

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 values need not be described, and the description still explains the shape of the two results and the provenance of the PHP requirement. For a moderately complex, multi-signal check with no annotations, the remaining gap is operational (expected runtime, whether it mutates the working tree via the dry-run) rather than conceptual.

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 all three parameters (path, target_php, target_magento) are already documented with examples ('8.3', '2.4.7') in the schema. The description reinforces what the inputs mean but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it checks a Magento project's readiness against a target PHP and Magento version, and it enumerates the two signals produced (per-package verdict and code_compatibility). That is far more precise than the bare name, but it never positions itself against close siblings like outdated_packages or upgrade_plan, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is an upgrade-readiness check to run before/alongside upgrade_plan, but the description names no alternative, no when-not-to-use condition, and no prerequisites beyond needing a project root with composer.json. It contextualizes the result rather than the invocation decision.

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