run_apt_update

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the operation 'apt update', which modifies the local package cache. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as network usage, time consumption, or the need for root privileges. The behavioral model is under-specified for a mutation tool.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. The 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but does not harm brevity. Every phrase serves a purpose, though the entire description could be more concise by removing the restatement of parameter names.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks important context like side effects, prerequisites, or how it relates to other tools. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could mislead an agent.

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%, meaning the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions. The description adds 'The node name' for the 'node' parameter, which clarifies its purpose (a node identifier). However, it does not specify format or constraints beyond what a string field implies. This provides some value but not comprehensive guidance.

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 'Refresh the package index on a node (apt update)'. It identifies the action (refresh/run) and the specific resource (package index/apt update). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'get_node_apt_update', the verb 'refresh' implies a state-changing operation, differentiating it from a read-only retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node_apt_update'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., root access), or contexts where running apt update is appropriate (e.g., before installations). The lack of usage context limits the agent's ability to make informed decisions.

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