upgrade_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose result semantics (a concrete blocker list rather than a score, ready=true only when empty) and reveals that it orchestrates three other tools, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor that it may be slow or expensive because it fans out to three sub-checks.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and composition first, then the shape and success condition of the result. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no narrative, and the safety profile is low-risk. The remaining gaps are the undocumented parameter formats and the absence of any statement about cost/latency or preconditions (e.g. a valid Magento project at path), which matter for a tool that fans out to three sub-checks.

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 description must document the three parameters. It gives rough meaning for two of them ('target PHP and Magento version') but no format or example values (e.g. '8.3', '2.4.7'), and 'path' is entirely unexplained — is it a project root, a composer.json, a store id?

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Builds an upgrade plan') with scope made explicit (against a target PHP and Magento version) and clear differentiation from siblings by naming check_updates, module_risk and fetch_release_notes as its inputs — this is a composite orchestrator, not a duplicate of any sibling.

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?

By stating it combines three sibling tools, the description implies the agent should reach for this when a consolidated verdict is wanted rather than the individual checks. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when you only need Y' exclusion, so an agent must infer the selection rule.

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