getGridAutoCheckUpgrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (getting a list), but it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is 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?

The description is concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the action and resource, the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (many sibling tools, three parameters, no output schema), the description effectively explains what the tool returns (a list of scheduled firmware upgrade checks) and its utility. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it, though more detail on the output structure could be beneficial.

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 input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions for 'page' and 'pageSize' (defaults and ranges). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The remaining parameter 'customHeaders' is described in the schema but not in the description. 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's purpose: 'Get the auto-check upgrade plan list showing scheduled firmware upgrade checks across devices.' It specifies the resource and action, and the additional sentence provides context for auditing and identifying devices due for updates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getFirmwareUpgradePlan.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Useful for auditing upgrade schedules and identifying devices due for automatic firmware updates.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate.

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