pod_outdated

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It claims a read-only 'shows' behavior but does not disclose that setting repoUpdate=true will update spec repositories (a side effect). It also does not describe the output format or network interactions.

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 description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional boolean parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose but omits the fact that repoUpdate modifies repository state and does not describe the return format. Still, for a list-oriented tool, it is largely complete.

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 each parameter has a descriptive comment. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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The description uses a specific verb ('Shows') and resource ('outdated pods in the current project') and explicitly mentions 'available updates', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pod_update (which actually performs updates) and pod_repo_update (which updates repos).

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?

The description states it works on the current project, giving context for use, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as whether to run pod_repo_update first or use pod_update to apply updates. The distinction is implied by the name but not stated.

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