outdated_packages

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 substantial work: it discloses the data source (composer.lock), that each package's latest-status (semver-safe-update vs update-possible) is surfaced as reported by Composer, and the failure contract ('scanned=false with a reason ... rather than silently reporting zero'). It stops short of stating permissions or whether the project is modified on disk, but for a read-oriented scan the behavioral picture is largely complete.

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?

Three dense sentences, all front-loaded with the core capability before the sibling differentiation and the failure-mode note. Every clause carries information, though the middle differentiation sentence is long enough to be slightly harder to parse than needed.

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 needn't be spelled out, yet the description already adds the key semantic (scanned=false on failure, per-package status codes). For a single-parameter tool this is close to complete; only the path-format ambiguity keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is just 'path' with no schema description, so the description must compensate. It implies the path targets a Magento project containing composer.lock, but never clarifies whether it is the project root directory or a direct path to composer.lock, which is the one ambiguity an agent could get wrong.

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` to report which ones have a newer version available') and explicitly scopes what it is not: 'independent of security_audit (known CVEs) and check_updates (compatibility ...)'. An agent can distinguish it from all three relevant siblings without opening a 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 the alternatives (security_audit, check_updates) and the exact condition that selects this one: 'a package can be behind on releases with neither of those issues, and that's still tech debt worth surfacing'. When-to-use and when-the-others-apply are both explicit.

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