pod_outdated

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything (it does not), whether it requires network access, what output format is produced, or if any side effects occur. The word 'Check' implies read-only, but no explicit confirmation of safety.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No filler words, but it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks critical details: whether it interacts with the network, what it returns (list of outdated pods?), and whether it requires a resolved Podfile.lock. Given sibling tools exist for update, the description should clarify that it only reports, not modifies.

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 covers the parameter fully with description 'Project directory containing Podfile', so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail beyond schema; however, since coverage is 100%, it is adequate.

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The description states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'outdated CocoaPods dependencies', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pod_install or pod_update, but the name and wording already make the distinction clear.

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?

No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pod_update. It lacks guidance on whether this is a dry-run or requires network access, and no context on prerequisites like having CocoaPods installed.

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