check_system_upgrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only check but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or safety profile. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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?

A single, self-contained sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action and object.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (0 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the meaning of availability, the response format, and parameter details. The current description leaves important gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description makes no mention of the parameters ('env_id', 'agent_token'). The purpose and format of these parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 action ('Check') and the resource ('system upgrade availability'), and specifies the context ('for the given environment'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trigger_upgrade' which performs the upgrade, and 'get_updater_status' which checks the updater service, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage as a preliminary check before an upgrade, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_updater_status' or 'trigger_upgrade'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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