signalgrid_software_updates

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: values are null when unreadable, the difference between cached and live state, and the performance implication of the live check. This goes beyond the annotation flags.

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 well-structured with a summary, a usage note, args, and returns. While somewhat verbose, every sentence carries useful information, including the return keys and the red-flag interpretation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given one parameter, a rich output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It covers return values, null semantics, performance, and decision-making context (patch-hygiene red flag). No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema description for check_online is thorough, covering default behavior and timing (30-120s). The description's Args section only repeats this information without adding additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly identifies the tool's resource: software update posture, including auto-update settings, last check, and available updates. It distinguishes from sibling posture tools by focusing specifically on software updates, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as checking for patch-hygiene red flags (LastUpdatesAvailable > 0 or stale LastSuccessfulDate). It also explains the trade-off between cached (instant) and live (slow) checks, guiding parameter selection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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