fleet_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it discloses that only check_updates runs per project (plus code_compatibility when rector.php exists), that blocked=false is not a clean bill of health, and that a project failing to load is reported as a per-project error rather than failing the batch. That last point is exactly the failure-mode behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences each carry distinct value (scope, exclusions, caveat, error handling). It is dense and somewhat long as a single paragraph, but no sentence is filler.

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 formatting need not be described. Given that, the description covers scope, exclusions, caveats, and per-project error semantics — everything needed to call it correctly 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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about paths, target_php or target_magento. The description implies paths are project filesystem paths ('bad path, missing composer files') and the targets are versions, but it gives no format or syntax guidance for any of the three. It partially compensates but leaves real gaps.

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 ('triages many Magento projects at once against a target PHP/Magento version') with an inline use-case framing. It clearly distinguishes itself from upgrade_plan, module_risk, security_audit and outdated_packages by naming them and explaining what it deliberately omits.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('which of these N stores can be upgraded today'), when-not ('deliberately not the full upgrade_plan') with the reason (per-project calls are seconds-to-minutes and don't scale), and a follow-up instruction ('call upgrade_plan per project afterward for the full picture'). Nothing is left to inference.

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