system_get_updates

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only ('reads update.* entities'), implying safety. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no updates are available. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the main purpose and provide essential context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 the simple tool (1 boolean param, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It explains what is listed and the data source. Slightly above baseline because it clarifies the entity model, but could mention non-destructiveness explicitly.

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 100% with a clear description of the pending_only parameter. The description adds context about entities representing components, but parameter meaning is already fully covered by the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists updates (core, add-ons, HACS, custom components) and explains the underlying mechanism (reads update.* entities). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hacs_list_hacs_critical_updates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hacs_list_hacs_critical_updates or supervisor_update_addon. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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