check_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the tool is read-only, does not refresh cache, may be fatal on unsupported package managers, and handles a pacman error with empty output by returning an empty list. This is thorough and builds accurate expectations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: operation, behavior, and usage guidance. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers when to use it, what it does, its limitations, and error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. The description is complete and well-scoped.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none, but it does mention the underlying commands, which provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 'Counts or lists available package updates without applying them' and even gives the underlying commands (pacman -Qu or apt list --upgradable). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_installed_packages by noting it handles pending updates rather than current versions.

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 explicitly says 'Use to see pending updates; get_installed_packages for current versions,' providing a clear usage context and naming an alternative tool. It also notes the tool does not apply updates or refresh cache, which helps avoid misuse.

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